get_crossed_off_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read (Get) and lists supported capabilities (search, date filters, sorting, pagination). It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but for a simple read operation, this is adequate.

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 a single concise sentence (16 words) that includes the essential information: the resource and all optional capabilities. No redundant or filler content.

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 that the tool has 8 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the key functionality (Get items with search, date filters, sorting, pagination) sufficiently. It identifies the required parameter (listId) implicitly through 'for one shopping list'. No important gaps remain.

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 75% with two parameters lacking descriptions (sortBy, sortOrder have enums but no text). The description adds value by summarizing the optional features, helping an agent understand the tool's capabilities beyond the schema's param-level details.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'crossed-off items for one shopping list'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_active_items' by specifying the state of items (crossed off). Mentioning optional filters and sorting makes the tool's scope explicit.

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 implies when to use this tool (to retrieve crossed-off items) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives. However, the sibling tool names provide context, and the description's clarity on the resource is sufficient for selection.

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