list_calibration_due

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing default statuses (PAST_RECOMMENDED_DUE_DATE and APPROACHING_RECOMMENDED_DUE_DATE) and the cap on preview_limit. It does not cover every edge case, but what is disclosed is valuable and goes beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by necessary context and parameter details—all in under 80 words. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, default statuses, parameter semantics, and limits. No additional details are needed.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: include_out_for_calibration toggles OUT_FOR_CALIBRATION assets and preview_limit is a max with a cap. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds meaning.

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 immediately states a clear verb+resource+scope: 'List instruments whose calibration is overdue or approaching due.' It also provides specific default statuses and ties the purpose to a PXI-fleet context, distinguishing it from generic wrappers.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool ('which chassis or module needs cal, and when') and contrasts it with a generic CMMS wrapper, giving strong contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, 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.