follow_ups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers nothing. It never states what the tool actually does (send? draft? queue?), whether it mutates lead state, what permissions are needed, or what 'copy the EN ping' implies operationally.

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 text is short but telegraphic rather than concise: the fragments are not self-explanatory and 'copy the EN ping' spends characters on obscure internal shorthand instead of stating the action. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but everything else is missing: no annotations, no parameter meaning at 0% coverage, and no indication of the action or its side effects. For a lead-mutating follow-up tool this is wholly inadequate.

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 0% and the sole parameter 'after_hours' (default 48) is never mentioned in the description. Its meaning — a threshold, a quiet-hours window, or something else — is left entirely to guesswork.

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 phrase 'Proposed leads silent too long' hints at a follow-up action on stale leads, but the verb is never stated and 'copy the EN ping' is unexplained jargon. It cannot be distinguished from siblings like chase_leads or evening_followup, which appear to cover near-identical ground.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as chase_leads or queue_outreach. The agent has no basis for choosing this tool over its many similar siblings.

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