get_followup_cadence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the cadence varies by country with specific gaps and question styles, but does not cover other behavioral aspects like permission requirements or side effects.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides illustrative context. No unnecessary words, and it front-loads the core functionality.

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?

Given the simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's output and regional variations, though it could detail the return format of the 'day-by-day sequence and rules'.

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 input schema has one enum parameter 'country' with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds meaningful context by explaining how the country influences the cadence, providing concrete examples beyond the enum list.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'follow-up cadence' with specifics like 'country-specific', 'day-by-day sequence and rules'. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as 'get_country_brief' and 'get_compliance_check' which target different information.

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 provides implicit guidance by detailing country-specific examples (Netherlands, Germany, Nordics), signaling when to use this tool to retrieve tailored cadences. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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