get_due_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the return format (JSON with count and cards array), data structure details (card fields and types), ordering behavior (by due date earliest first), and that it retrieves a specified number of cards. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers core behavioral aspects adequately.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential details about return format and ordering. Every sentence adds value: first states what it does, second describes output structure, third specifies card fields, fourth explains ordering. No wasted words.

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 read-only tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description provides good completeness: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how results are ordered. It could mention if there are authentication requirements or pagination, but covers the essential context well given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'num' parameter fully. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('cards that are due for review'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_card' (single card) and 'get_new_cards' (different card type). It explicitly defines what 'due' means in this context.

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 usage for reviewing due cards, which differentiates it from siblings like 'add_card' or 'update_card', but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_new_cards' or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives guidance.

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