Follow-ups as calendar events

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: events are all-day, overdue follow-ups are placed on today, each description ends with a tracker-mcp id line, and callers should search the calendar for that id to update rather than duplicate. It also clearly states the tracker is not touched, consistent with readOnlyHint=true. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 compact and front-loads the core concept: open follow-ups rendered as all-day calendar events. Every clause contributes useful information about event format, duplicate avoidance, and tracker isolation, though the semicolon-heavy phrasing is slightly dense.

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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and single fully documented parameter, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: it explains the event shape, the embedded tracker-mcp id, duplicate handling, and the fact that the tracker is not modified. No essential behavioral or integration detail appears missing.

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?

The single parameter, days, is already fully described in the schema as 'Follow-ups due up to this many days ahead'. The tool description itself does not add further meaning, constraints, or examples for this parameter. With 100% schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly establishes that this tool exposes open follow-ups as all-day calendar events with date, title, and description, and notes that overdue items appear on today. It is understandable, but it does not explicitly name the closest sibling, export_followups_calendar, or use a direct verb such as 'export' or 'generate', leaving some sibling differentiation implicit.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: it is for the user's own calendar tool via the sync_calendar prompt, and the tracker is not modified. It also explains how to avoid duplicates by searching the calendar for the embedded tracker-mcp id before adding another event. It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools such as followups_due or export_followups_calendar.

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