list_deadlines

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the kind of output (booking deadlines and cancel-by dates) and implies a read-only listing through 'list' and the usage context, but it does not state side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is purely non-destructive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The core output description is front-loaded, followed by a concise usage cue.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in depth. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a required nested ledger object, the description is too sparse to explain the required input or important behavioral constraints for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the two parameters. The required nested 'ledger' object and optional 'today' parameter are left entirely undocumented, so an agent gets no help from the description about what to pass.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and output type: 'Dated actions the plan implies: booking deadlines and cancel-by dates.' This distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like get_holiday_windows or calculate_leave_cost, though it does not explicitly name itself as the deadline-listing tool beyond the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives one clear usage context: 'Use it to answer "what needs doing next?"'. However, it does not explain when to prefer it over alternatives such as summarise_plan or check_ledger, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.