Show Reminders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the default filter behavior, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result ordering, limits, or how completed items appear.

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?

Front-loads purpose, follows with usage triggers, and closes with a compact arg list. The Args section largely duplicates the schema, but it is brief and scannable rather than wasteful.

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-required-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps (return shape, ordering) are tolerable given the low complexity.

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 both parameters including the enum values and default. The description restates the filter options and the default without adding format details (e.g., accepted date string syntax), which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show reminders from Apple Reminders'), which cleanly separates it from the write-oriented siblings (add_reminder, edit_reminder, delete_reminders). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_reminder_lists, but the resource difference is implied clearly enough.

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?

Provides concrete trigger phrasing — 'what they need to do', 'what's on their list', 'what's due, overdue', 'agenda/tasks' — which maps well onto user intent. It lacks explicit exclusions or a named alternative (e.g., when to prefer complete_reminders), so it falls just short of a 5.

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