run_smart_follow_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses synchronous execution with a maximum 180-second wait and that a timeout does not mean the batch stopped — it may keep running in the background, so results should be re-checked later. It does not say whether the run creates or mutates decision records, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by example utterances, the optional parameter, and timeout behavior. The sample question list is slightly padded but earns its place by improving routing accuracy; overall it is well structured with no real filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description covers the operation's scope, timing, timeout semantics and next step. The one omission is whether the run has side effects on stored decisions, which matters for a batch analysis tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: monitor_id is explained as restricting analysis to one self-owned monitor item, with omission meaning all self-owned, enabled products. That is exactly the semantics an agent needs and goes beyond the bare integer type in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: triggers a smart follow-sell batch analysis, names the algorithm set (ALG-01~12 with decision chains), and says it runs synchronously and returns result status. The closing pointer to get_smart_follow_results makes clear this tool runs the analysis while that sibling only reads results.

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?

Gives three concrete user phrasings that should route here and an explicit handoff: after the run completes, use get_smart_follow_results to see per-product suggested actions, target prices and reasons. That covers when to use this tool and what to do next, leaving little to inference.

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