due_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the sort order and the cross-deck default scope. It omits whether cards are removed from or rescheduled in the due queue, whether results are paginated, and how the limit interacts with the ordering — meaningful gaps for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by the one scoping rule that matters. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the essentials are present (scope, ordering, limit default via schema). It is still thin on what a returned card contains and on deck identifier format, which an agent must guess before calling.

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 coverage is 50%: limit self-documents via 'Max cards to return (default 20)' while deck is bare. The description compensates for deck by explaining that omitting it searches all decks, but adds nothing about limit or the accepted deck format (name vs ID), leaving the semantics half-covered.

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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (cards due for review today) plus an ordering guarantee (oldest due first), which is enough to separate it from list_cards. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, so 4 rather than 5.

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 second sentence gives conditional usage for the deck parameter ('Omit deck to get due cards across all decks'), which implies the when-to-use context. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_cards or review_card, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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