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

Annotations already signal read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a useful behavioral fact—the existing days, times, and channels are preserved while every step is rewritten—without contradicting the readOnlyHint, since the rewrite appears to be a generated output rather than a persisted mutation. It does not disclose other traits like output format, but the annotations carry the main safety profile.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase adds information ('every step', 'keeping the days, times and channels'). It is appropriately compact for what it conveys, though some of that brevity explains why parameter coverage is thin.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, yet the description is the only source of guidance for most of them. It does not say what the tool returns, what the situation enum values mean, or how day_and_time and customer_first_name relate to the output, so an agent has to infer too much before calling it.

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 description coverage is only 14% ('customer' is the only described property), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'customer' is the person to tailor for and implicitly ties 'days, times and channels' to cadence scheduling, but it leaves rep, company, product, customer_first_name, and the situation enum values unexplained.

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 a specific action ('rewrites every step') on a clear resource ('a situation's follow-up cadence'), with the tailoring target ('for the customer you describe') and a preservation constraint ('keeping the days, times and channels'). This distinguishes it from siblings like rewrite_follow_up_text or write_follow_up_texts, which operate on individual texts rather than the whole cadence.

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 the use case—personalizing an entire follow-up cadence to a described customer—but never states when to choose this over follow_up_cadence, rewrite_follow_up_text, or write_follow_up_texts, nor any exclusions. Context is present but no explicit routing guidance, so this is implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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