search_reminders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral detail: match semantics ('every word must appear, in any order, any case') and result ordering ('title matches first, then by due date'). It omits the default exclusion of completed items and the limit behavior, but the search/ranking disclosure is well beyond what annotations would give.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained; the description covers matching semantics, scope, ordering, and usage. It leaves the limit and completed-item defaults implicit, which is the one gap, but overall it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially maps 'words in the title or notes' to text and 'across all lists (or one list)' to list, but says nothing about the limit or include_completed parameters and their defaults. Half the parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus resource ('reminders'), with scope stated: words in title or notes, across all lists or one. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_reminders (enumerate all) and search_events (different resource).

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'before creating something to avoid duplicates, or to find that reminder about X.' This is concrete context. It doesn't name the competing sibling (list_reminders) as an alternative, so it falls just short of a 5, but the usage conditions are clear.

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