get_todo

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior: the wording, notes and sub-tasks are masked while dates are real, and the agent should ask the person what an item says. It also clarifies that mutation happens elsewhere (the person ticks on the taxtrace page), which prevents a false write attempt.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with the resource and ordering stated first and the masking caveat second. Every clause carries information; the single long parenthetical is slightly heavy but not padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, ordering and group taxonomy, plus the masking limitation the agent must not misreport. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it is missing.

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 100% and the days parameter is fully described there (overdue plus items due within N days, omit for all, undated last). The description adds no syntax or edge-case detail for days, so the schema does the work — baseline 3.

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 the exact resource (open money and tax to-dos from todo.md), the ordering (soonest first), and enumerates the returned fields including the group buckets. It also names the sibling boundary (list_documents for documents), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Clear usage context: open items only, ordering, and an explicit redirect for documents to list_documents. It does not state what to do for closed/completed to-dos or a direction to tick items, but the 'open only' scope plus the sibling routing is enough guidance for correct selection.

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