find_stale_applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the core filtering behavior, but it does not define 'recent' or 'upcoming', clarify whether closed applications are excluded, or explicitly confirm that this is a read-only lookup.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the filtering criterion immediately and uses the informal 'nudge list' label efficiently.

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 lookup with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource and the filter. The remaining gaps are the undefined thresholds for 'recent' and 'upcoming' and the lack of explicit routing guidance against sibling tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain beyond the schema. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter guidance.

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 identifies the exact subset of applications returned: those with no recent contact and no upcoming next-action. It is more specific than a generic list tool, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as list_applications or what_is_due_this_week.

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 phrase 'the nudge list' implies this should be used when looking for applications that need follow-up. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives for related queries.

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