UnRemind.me Submit

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only explanatory tool. It adds useful behavioral context by stating what the explanation covers, including acceptance factors and limits, beyond what the empty schema and annotations reveal.

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 sentences with no filler: the first compactly lists the content areas, and the second gives an actionable call heuristic. The most important usage guidance is front-loaded and every sentence 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 zero-parameter, read-only guidance tool, this description is complete: it explains what the tool provides, why an agent would call it, and the condition under which it should be used. No return value is promised, and no output schema exists, so nothing essential 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema fully covers that with an empty properties object, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 uses a specific verb (Explains) and names the exact resource (a submitted Unreminder) and the topics covered: acceptance likelihood, sending limits, and additional offerings. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling submit_unreminder because it is the explanatory counterpart to actually submitting.

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 gives an explicit call condition: 'Call this if you are unsure whether or how to submit.' The when-not case and the alternative submit_unreminder are implied rather than named, so it stops just short of fully explicit routing.

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

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

Annotations are all false (no hints), so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the reminder lands in a 'Submitted to you' queue for approval rather than appearing immediately, explains that it is sent on behalf of the person and the recipient sees the submitter's name, and warns that there is no username lookup. These are important behavioral facts beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core behavior and timeline. Each sentence contributes meaningful information: the queue behavior, the username source, and the explicit warnings. No redundant or filler sentences; it is appropriately detailed for an 8-parameter tool.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, the on-behalf semantics, the queue mechanics, and all parameter pitfalls. It gives enough for an agent to safely call the tool without guessing usernames or inventing emails, which are the most likely errors. No critical gap remains.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds substantial guidance beyond the schema: notes should be strongly preferred or risk declination, due_at should only be set if a real deadline exists, and submitter_email should never be invented and must be asked for. These add critical usage nuances that are not present in the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Sends a reminder'), a specific resource (someone with a public UnRemind.me page), and the on-behalf relationship. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_submission_guidance by being about the actual submission action. The queue behavior is mentioned, making it 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?

The description gives explicit context for when to use the tool: when the helper has the recipient's username from their page URL, and it strongly warns against guessing. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool get_submission_guidance, but its purpose is clear. A brief note that get_submission_guidance is for crafting content would have pushed this to a 5.

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