due_again_items

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It does add the returned fields (status and next due date), but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or ordering for what could be a long list of recurring items.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the filtering capability. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

For a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and readOnlyHint, the description covers purpose, domain, and returned fields. Only pagination/result-size behavior is left unstated.

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 100%, so search, status (with its enum), and withinDays are already fully documented, including the note that overdue items are included. The description only restates the status and look-ahead filters and omits the search parameter entirely, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus the resource (items in Due Again) and even explains the domain in a parenthetical, so an agent knows it is a read of recurring commitments with status and next due date. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby due_again_history list tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 second sentence ('Filter by status or look ahead a number of days') implies when the filters are useful, but never states when to choose this tool over due_again_history or the mutation siblings. Usage is inferred rather than prescribed, and no exclusions are given.

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