search_follow_ups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It gives no info about return format, sorting, pagination, or whether the search is case-insensitive or partial-match. A search tool with zero annotations should disclose more about behavior beyond the bare fields.

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 short sentence, zero waste, appropriately minimal for a simple search tool. 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?

A search tool with an output schema and 2 well-documented params is simple, but given no annotations and no guidance on result ordering, limit semantics, or search behavior, the description is thin. It satisfies the bare minimum but leaves the agent guessing about result characteristics and usage context.

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 both parameters (query, limit) are documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'by title or description' adds a small semantic detail about what the query matches, but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameters.

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 'Search follow-ups by title or description' has a clear verb (search) and resource (follow-ups), specifying the search fields (title or description). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling search tools like search_commitments or search_delegations, but the resource name differentiates it adequately.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_commitments, search_delegations, or get_follow_ups. The sibling set includes get_follow_ups and get_overdue_follow_ups, but the description does not clarify when a search is preferred over a list retrieval, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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