get_overdue_delegations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are filtered to past-due, incomplete delegations and notes ordering by due date. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get' but not stated), pagination, or output structure beyond a vague 'Returns' note.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the purpose in the first line, then scoping and return ordering details. The 'Returns' section could arguably be trimmed since an output schema exists, but it's brief and adds ordering info not necessarily in the schema. No wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't needed in the description. The tool is a simple param-free filtered list (overdue delegations). The description covers the filter criteria (past due, incomplete) and ordering (by due date), which is complete for this straightforward read tool. It could mention the relationship to get_delegations but isn't critically incomplete.

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 zero parameters and the schema is fully covered (100%), so there's no parameter under-documentation risk. The description's focus on what's returned and how it's ordered is the relevant semantic content. This is appropriately handled given the param-free 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?

The description clearly states 'Get all overdue delegations' with a specific verb+resource. It adds scope details ('past their due date that haven't been completed'), effectively distinguishing from generic get_delegations. While it doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool, the 'overdue' qualifier clearly signals the differentiation.

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 implies when to use it (to find unfinished delegations past due date) through the 'overdue' framing and return criteria, but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It doesn't say 'when not to use' or reference sibling tools like get_delegations or get_overdue_commitments, leaving usage context to inference.

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