Get to-do list items

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds the useful redirect for write operations but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or what happens when entity_id does not refer to a todo list. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the primary subject is front-loaded ahead of the defensive redirect. Everything present 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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with a 50%-covered schema and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: entity format is exemplified and mutation is redirected. What is missing is a note on what a returned item looks like and how the status filter interacts with the results, which would matter since no output schema exists to describe the return.

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 50%: status is documented with an enum in the schema, but entity_id has no description there. The description partially compensates by giving a concrete example format ('todo.shopping_list'), which is genuinely beyond the schema. The status filter and its enum values are never explained in the description, leaving the remaining half of the semantics to the schema alone.

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 identifies the resource concretely ('Items on a to-do list entity such as todo.shopping_list'), which makes the Domain.object_id format explicit and distinct from generic entity tools. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb, so the action (list) is implied rather than stated, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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?

It names the alternative explicitly for the mutation cases: 'To add, complete or remove items use call_service with the todo domain.' That is a clear when-not-here routing rule. It does not cover the read-side alternatives (e.g., search_entities or get_entity_details) for listing generic entities, so the guidance is one-sided rather than complete.

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