complete_reminder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the return value (True if found and completed, False otherwise) and the effect of the optional list_name. However, it does not address edge cases like duplicate names, idempotency (already completed), or permissions, leaving gaps in full transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, an Args section with per-parameter explanations, and a Returns section. No redundant or extraneous content earns a top score.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and a boolean return, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return value. It does not cover edge-case behavior, but given the simple scope and the presence of an output schema, this is largely sufficient.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'name' must be the exact name, and 'list_name' is optional and 'narrow[s] the search'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it could be more detailed about formatting or uniqueness.

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 action with the specific verb 'Mark' and the resource 'reminder', along with the action 'completed'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_reminder, update_reminder, and delete_reminder by focusing specifically on the completion status.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for completing a reminder, and the optional list_name parameter narrows the search. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over update_reminder or list any exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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