get_overdue_commitments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read/query operation (returns overdue commitments) which implies non-mutating behavior, but does not explicitly confirm it's read-only, mention ordering besides by due date, describe pagination, or note any relationship to delegation tools with similar 'overdue' semantics.

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 description is compact — roughly three short sentences plus a 'Returns' note. The opening line states purpose immediately, followed by the filter criterion and the ordering guarantee. It's front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns:' section somewhat redundantly repeats ordering info already stated.

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 and zero parameters, the description must only clarify what 'overdue' means and what ordering applies — both are covered. It mentions 'both directions' which is useful scoping. For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, this is reasonably complete, though it could hint at how it differs from get_overdue_follow_ups and get_overdue_delegations.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add on parameter meaning. The description compensates by explaining what the operation does and its return format (ordered by due date). For a zero-parameter tool, this is a solid baseline of 4.

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 clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (overdue commitments), and a scope qualifier ('both directions' — meaning both given and received commitments). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_my_commitments, get_others_commitments, and get_overdue_delegations. The distinction is explicit and effective.

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 description clarifies it returns commitments past due date that aren't completed. The 'both directions' scoping adds context, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_commitments, get_all_commitments, or get_overdue_delegations. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated with alternatives.

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