client_followup

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

Description goes beyond annotations (none provided) by stating the output is short, non-pushy, and designed to reopen conversation. Does not mention side effects or limitations, but tone and intent are clear.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral promise, then input requirements. Efficient and easy to grasp.

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?

While the description covers purpose and inputs, it does not specify the output format or how the generated message is returned. For a generating tool, this is a missing detail.

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 100% and description repeats the need to provide summary and days. No additional meaning beyond schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool writes a follow-up message for a proposal with no response, using specific verb-resource combo. It stands out from siblings like `proposal_to_email` or `contract_unsigned_follow_up` which handle different scenarios.

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?

Explicitly says to provide proposal summary and days since sent, giving clear context for use. However, no guidance on when not to use or comparison to alternative tools like `bid_lost_follow_up`.

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