build_followup_ladder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It uses 'Returns' which clearly indicates a read-only, side-effect-free operation. The description also adds context about the statistical impact of the break-up, but doesn't explicitly state safety or permissions; still, for a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main function and including the specific steps. The second sentence adds motivational context without bloat. Every word earns its place.

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 simple nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned: a 5-step ladder with moves and rules. It also provides the optional parameter via the schema. It could have detailed the output structure slightly more, but it's complete for its simplicity.

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 100% and fully explains the optional target_type parameter, including its enum and purpose. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but since the schema already provides complete semantics, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the 5-step follow-up ladder' and enumerates the exact steps, making the purpose obvious. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like handle_reply or structure_cold_pitch by focusing specifically on generating a follow-up sequence.

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 when to use this tool: whenever a follow-up sequence is needed. It provides useful context with the statistic about deal close rates, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where it should not be used, hence not a 5.

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