List follow-ups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior: default filtering to open items, sort order by due date, and overdue/due-today flagging. It omits return shape and pagination, but the added flags and ordering justify a 4 over the annotation baseline.

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 tight sentences with no waste; the scope and ordering are front-loaded before the parameter hint. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers default scope and ordering but leaves include_done and as_of behavior unexplained, and says nothing about the shape of results an agent will receive. Adequate but with clear 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 coverage is 33%: only as_of carries a schema description. The description explains due_within_days' limiting role, which compensates for part of the gap, but include_done semantics and any detail on due_within_days units/edge values are left entirely to inference.

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 (list) and resource (follow-ups) plus the scope: open items only, sorted by due date. The resource name and 'open' qualifier effectively separate it from add_follow_up and complete_follow_up, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use due_within_days to limit' gives one usage hint, and 'Open follow-ups' implies done items are excluded unless include_done is set. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling list tools or when to set include_done, so guidance is only implied.

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