apple_reminders_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' prefix merely restates structured data. It adds no behavioral context such as what happens if the id is not found, permission requirements, or how the returned fields behave when unset.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field list is the payload. It is efficient, though the 'Read-only:' prefix is redundant against the annotations.

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, enumerating the returned fields is genuinely useful and partially covers the return-value gap. However, the tool still lacks any id semantics or error behavior, so an agent could not confidently call it from this description alone.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains what the id is, its expected format, or where to obtain it (e.g., from apple_reminders_list), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb (get) and resource (reminder) and enumerates the fields retrieved (notes, completion, due time, alarm, priority, flag), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like apple_reminders_list or apple_reminders_search, so a 4 rather than 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list, search, or update. The 'Read-only' prefix hints at the safe-fetch role but does not tell the agent when to pick this over apple_reminders_list or apple_reminders_search.

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