get_overdue_follow_ups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states follow-ups are filtered by due date and completion status, and notes results are ordered by due date. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, page size limits, or what fields are returned beyond the output schema. The description adds some value but leaves transparency gaps.

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 at three short lines. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the ordering detail. The 'Returns:' line somewhat repeats the opening statement (redundant phrasing about overdue follow-ups), which seems as if it's a lightweight docstring template. Minor redundancy but no wasted words.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description is reasonably adequate. However, given no annotations and a mutation-heavy sibling set (complete_follow_up, create_follow_up, update_follow_up), the description could clarify that this is a read operation and clarify what action the caller is expected to take with the results (e.g., which ones need completion). The ordering detail is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 the parameter semantics are straightforward. With no parameters and 100% schema coverage (trivially, since there are none), the baseline 4 is appropriate since there's nothing for the description to clarify.

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 gets overdue follow-ups, defined as 'past their due date and not completed.' The verb+resource is specific and the scope (overdue, uncompleted) is explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like get_follow_ups and complete_follow_up well enough, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling 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?

The description implies usage (fetching overdue follow-ups that need action) but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool references. Siblings like search_follow_ups exist but aren't mentioned as alternatives for filtering use cases.

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