contract_unsigned_follow_up

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it generates a short professional email with specific tone constraints. It reveals that the tone is calibrated by days_since_sent parameter, that it avoids guilt, and that it includes an easy out. Also discloses that it does not consume monthly draft limit. No contradictions or omissions.

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 detailed but efficient, front-loading the core purpose and then differentiating with siblings. It uses clear, direct language. A few extra phrases ('the hardest follow-up to write because it feels pushy') add empathy but don't waste space. Could be slightly shorter, but well-structured.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description provides enough context to use correctly: it explains when to use, tone, length constraint, and parameter usage. It does not describe the return format, but that's acceptable as output is presumably the generated email text. A minor gap: no mention of how the email is returned (draft, copy, etc.), but still complete enough.

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% with each parameter already well-described (e.g., client_name, days_since_sent for tone calibration). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate per guidelines.

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 writes a professional follow-up email when a client has agreed but not signed. It explicitly distinguishes itself from three sibling tools by naming their specific contexts (never replied, proposal not approved, closing out ghost). The verb 'write' and resource 'follow-up for unsigned contract' are precise and unique.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'after the handshake: they said yes, you sent the contract, now it's sitting unsigned.' Also tells when-not-to-use by contrasting with sibling tools. Includes tone guidance (matter-of-fact, no guilt, under 100 words, gives easy out) and a system behavior note (doesn't count against draft limit). Comprehensive and actionable.

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