get_follow_ups

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It correctly defines a read operation without side effects, but does not mention output format, pagination, or absence-of-results behavior. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant words. Every part is informative: the action, the conditions, and the purpose ('shows what needs attention').

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?

For a simple read with no params or output schema, the description covers the purpose and filtering. It lacks mention of return fields, but agents can infer from sibling tools. Minor gap.

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?

With zero parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the filtering logic (date and status) beyond the empty schema, compensating for the lack of param details.

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 verb 'return', the resource 'applications', and includes specific filtering criteria (follow_up_due_date today or earlier, status applied/screening). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_applications' which lack this filter.

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 implies usage for viewing applications needing attention. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes usage clear. A score of 4 reflects the lack of explicit exclusion guidance.

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