get_follow_ups_with_person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is terse and doesn't disclose what counts as 'follow-ups' (what kind, what statuses), whether the tool handles multi-email aliases, or whether it only returns incomplete follow-ups by default. With an output schema present, some return information may be structurally available, but behavioral traits are not disclosed beyond the minimal filter behavior implied by the include_completed param.

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 sentence, maximally concise with zero waste. However, it is under-specified rather than truly concise—it's efficient but lacks the useful context that would make it valuable, though no fluff exists to penalize heavily.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, which reduces the burden on the description. However, the purpose overlaps heavily with siblings like get_follow_ups, get_overdue_follow_ups, get_commitments_with_person, and search_follow_ups, and the description does nothing to clarify what makes this tool distinct. It doesn't explain the default filtering behavior (include_completed defaults to false, which is arguably implied) or how results differ from related tools. Given the sibling complexity but moderate schema/annotations coverage, the description is notably incomplete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (person_email and include_completed with its default). The description adds essentially nothing beyond the schema—it just restates 'specific person' which maps to person_email. Baseline 3 for 100% coverage is appropriate, but the description provides no supplementary semantic value like explaining what happens if person_email is unknown or whether include_completed applies to follow-ups with any status.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and a resource ('follow-ups') with a scope qualifier ('related to a specific person'), which clearly states the core action and target. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_commitments_with_person, get_delegations_to_person, or search_follow_ups, all of which could plausibly be confused. It's clear but lacks differentiation from the many 'with_person' / 'to_person' siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many closely related siblings (get_follow_ups, get_overdue_follow_ups, search_follow_ups, get_commitments_with_person), the description fails entirely to clarify selection criteria. The agent would have no way to know whether this should be chosen over get_follow_ups or get_overdue_follow_ups, or what differentiates it from get_commitments_with_person.

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