list_reminders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are filtered to pending items, ordered by due date, and capped at 100 — the cap being the closest thing to a rate/result limit disclosure. It stops short of saying what happens when more than 100 reminders are pending (truncation vs. pagination).

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the scoping constraints. Every clause (pending, personal, 100, due order) carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with readOnly annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials. The only gap is behavior at the 100-item boundary and whether completed/dismissed reminders are ever included, which an agent might want to know.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The schema is trivially complete.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (personal reminders), with meaningful qualifiers: 'pending', capped at 100, in 'due order'. It is naturally distinguishable from the write-oriented siblings create_reminder and cancel_reminder, though it never names them 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 'pending personal reminders' — the agent knows this is the read path for reminders — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to create_reminder/cancel_reminder for the mutation cases.

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