testimonial_follow_up_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key technique (offering to write a draft), length constraint ('Under 80 words'), tone ('no guilt, no pressure'), and the impact of the 'offer_draft' parameter. It does not describe return format or potential side effects, but for a text generation tool, the behavioral aspects are well covered.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and includes several informative sentences. Each sentence adds value: timing, distinction, key technique, length constraint, optional param importance, and draft limit note. It could be slightly more concise, but it remains efficient and clear with minimal redundancy.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description covers nearly all relevant aspects: purpose, timing, sibling differentiation, behavioral details, and parameter effects. It does not explicitly state the return format, but it is implied that the tool outputs an email text. The description is sufficiently complete to guide correct usage.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, granting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'project_name' (makes email feel specific) and emphasizing 'offer_draft' as the highest-impact line. This additional context improves parameter understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Write a gentle follow-up when a testimonial request has gone unanswered', specifying the verb (write) and resource (follow-up email). It distinguishes from the sibling 'testimonial_request' by calling it the nudge that increases conversion.

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 provides timing ('one to two weeks after the initial testimonial_request') and distinguishes from the sibling 'testimonial_request'. It also notes that the tool does not count against the monthly draft limit. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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