Reviews due

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond them: ascending order by next_review_date, the default window, and which fields (adviser, previous review date) come back.

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?

Front-loaded with the core semantics in the first sentence and the window defaults. The second sentence drifts into API endpoint/filter implementation detail, which is mildly wasteful but still informative.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (adviser and previous review date) and ordering. Combined with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only sibling routing is absent.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the from/to window and API filter syntax, adding no new parameter-level meaning, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 and resource: clients whose next review date falls in a date window, with ordering and returned fields. It is clearly distinct from search_clients and get_client by its review-due semantics, though it never names a sibling to steer the agent away.

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 default window (today to 30 days ahead) and ordering imply the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as search_clients for non-review queries.

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