Seguimientos pendientes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the three output groups and their logic (e.g., abandoned prospects lack follow-up date). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or if any mutations occur, though the context suggests query behavior.

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 two concise sentences in Spanish, front-loaded with 'A quién hay que seguir' and immediately detailing the three groups. No redundant or extra information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the three result groups, including edge cases (abandoned prospects). Given the simplicity (one optional parameter), this is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's return value.

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% for the only parameter ('dias'), which already includes a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 tool returns three groups of pending follow-ups: overdue, upcoming, and abandoned prospects. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'buscar_prospectos' (prospecting) or 'resumen_pipeline' (pipeline summary), making its purpose 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 implies the tool is for identifying who needs follow-up, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like 'buscar_prospectos' or 'cambiar_estado'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving guidance implicit.

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