qc_intervention_followup

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

The description frames the tool as an analytical comparison rather than a mutation, which gives some behavioral signal in the absence of annotations. However, it does not state the before/after export dependency, exclusion behavior, or output shape in the tool description itself; those live only in x_suso_qc metadata/input schema.

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 text is one focused sentence with no filler, and the main verb and target are front-loaded. The 'qc_intervention_followup:' prefix repeats the tool name, which is the only minor inefficiency.

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?

The input schema is relatively rich (x_suso_qc provides outputContract, exclusionRules, required export type, and minimum data requirements), so the sparse description is partially supported. Still, with eight parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance among many similar QC tools, the overall definition is adequate but not complete.

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 only 50% schema coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent is left to infer what 'plan', 'confirm_plan_id', 'questionnaire_identity', and 'profile' mean. The phrase 'targeted interviewers, variables, or cases' loosely maps to the variables parameter, but it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 names a specific action ('compare'), a clear resource ('post-feedback outcomes'), and the target axes ('targeted interviewers, variables, or cases'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby qc_* siblings, and the top-level wording leaves the before/after baseline implicit.

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?

'Post-feedback' and 'targeted' imply after an intervention has been delivered, which is useful usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among the many sibling QC tools, so the guidance is only implied.

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