overdue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: recurring-event occurrences are excluded unless include_recurring=true, with a permanent exception for series titled '[suivi]'. It also documents sort order, but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or volume limits.

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?

Content is front-loaded (what it lists, then the ordering, then routing, then the recurrence rule) and no sentence is filler. The long parenthetical explaining the '[suivi]' convention makes the surface reading slightly heavy, but every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description covers filtering semantics, ordering, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single boolean, so the description must carry the burden — and it does, explaining exactly what include_recurring toggles, the default exclusion behavior, and the '[suivi]' series exception that overrides it. Without this text the parameter would be opaque.

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 names a specific resource and its exact composition: past-and-still-open items (overdue tasks plus finished events not marked done), sorted oldest to newest. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling `next` by stating its content is otherwise already covered there, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 states the precise condition for using this tool alone ("qu'est-ce que je n'ai pas fait") and explicitly notes that otherwise the content is already in `next`, naming the alternative. This is a complete when/when-not/alternative statement.

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