List reminders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuine behavioral context not present elsewhere: the soonest-first ordering and the max-50 cap. It does not cover pagination beyond limit, empty-result behavior, or permission requirements, and the Input restatement duplicates the schema rather than adding to it.

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 one-sentence purpose followed by short Input/Output blocks; nothing is bloated. Minor waste in the Input block, which restates the schema's limit description word-for-word instead of adding information.

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?

A simple, side-effect-free list tool with a rich output schema (return values need not be explained) and full sibling context. Ordering, scope, and the limit cap are the only things an agent materially needs, and ordering plus scope are present; only the alert-vs-reminder distinction is left to inference.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents default 20 / max 50. The description merely repeats this verbatim rather than adding semantics, which is the expected baseline 3 for a fully covered 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 and resource ('Lists tracked jobs that have reminders set') and adds a scope/ordering qualifier ('ordered by reminder time, soonest first'). An agent can distinguish it from tracker_list, job_alert_list, and reminder_set/delete from the description alone, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (call this to view existing reminders) but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the adjacent alternatives in the sibling list, notably job_alert_list (alerts vs reminders) and tracker_list. Nothing misleading, just under-specified routing.

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