next

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the default window behavior, the sort order of tasks (by due date then estimated duration), the required markdown/three-block presentation, the mandate to show an explicitly empty Overdue block, and the id-suppression rule. These are real behavioral traits not derivable from the annotations.

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 text is front-loaded with purpose then usage then rendering rules, so it reads in a sensible order and each clause carries information. It is somewhat long and includes presentation directives that border on agent prompting, but nothing is truly redundant.

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 complex aggregator with an output schema present, the description still covers the scope, the trigger questions, the single parameter's default, the sort order, and the empty-result edge case. An agent has everything needed to call and render it correctly.

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% for the single `hours` parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, defining it as a window in hours from now and pinning the default to end-of-workday (or midnight if already past). That fully specifies the only parameter's semantics and default.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource framing ('global state of the day in a single call') and then enumerates the four data categories it returns (overdue, window events, free slots, open tasks incl. undated). Because those categories map exactly onto the single-purpose siblings (overdue, agenda, free_slots, tasks), the composite scope makes selection unambiguous.

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 an explicit trigger: 'call for any question like what do I have today / to do', which is a clear usage context. However it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use agenda/free_slots instead when you only need X'), so the routing versus its 12 siblings is left partly to inference.

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