Follow-ups due

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: overdue items are included in the window, and applications with no follow-up date at all are appended to the result set — a non-obvious composition rule an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, and the primary criteria are front-loaded before the secondary 'no follow-up date' clause. Slightly compressed phrasing ('due by today + within_days') costs a little readability but nothing is wasted.

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 shape needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. For a single optional-parameter read tool, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: inclusion rules, the today anchor, and the union with undated applications. Only ordering/sort behavior is unstated, which is minor.

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% (single param documented as 'Look this many days ahead' with default 7, range 0-60), so baseline is 3. The description adds the reference point the schema lacks — the window is anchored at today and extends forward, with overdue included — which meaningfully interprets within_days=0 and the default.

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 names a specific resource (follow-ups) and precisely states its selection scope: due by today + within_days, overdue included, plus submitted applications lacking a follow-up date. That distinguishes it from mutation siblings like log_followup/reschedule_followup, though the verb is implicit and no sibling is named as an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the selection criteria rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the 'what's due' query, but nothing says when to prefer it over stale_applications, summary, or export_followups_calendar. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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