reminders_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions search functionality and filtering options, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), pagination behavior (only mentions 'limit' parameter), error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place—the first sentence states the main action and scope, while the second adds key filtering capabilities without redundancy. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with filtering), 100% schema coverage for inputs, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering options but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, result format, error cases) that would be helpful for an AI agent, especially without annotations to fill those gaps.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters (query, list, includeCompleted, limit) with their types, descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'query' searches in 'title or notes' and that filtering by 'list and completion status' is supported, which is already clear from parameter names and schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Search reminders by keyword in title or notes') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'reminders_list' (which presumably lists all reminders without search) and 'reminders_add' (which creates reminders). It specifies the resource (reminders) and scope (search by keyword in title/notes).

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 for when to use this tool ('Search reminders by keyword in title or notes') and mentions filtering capabilities ('Supports filtering by list and completion status'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. 'reminders_list' for browsing all reminders without search) or name specific alternatives, though the context is clear enough for effective usage.

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