Get Followups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering (most overdue first) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe any other behavioral traits such as pagination or rate limits. The verb 'get' implies read-only, but this is not stated. The description is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and ordering. There is no redundant information or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and 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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is sufficient. It states the core function and ordering, and the schema covers the parameter details. The only minor gap is the lack of usage guidance, but this is not critical for a straightforward getter. Overall, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 description covers 100% of the parameter (within_days), so the description does not need to repeat it. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but since the schema already documents it fully, the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving contacts that are owed a follow-up, with a specific ordering (most overdue first). It uses a clear verb ('get') and a specific resource ('contacts owed a follow-up'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like log_interaction or send_email which serve different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives. It implies its usage (when you need to see contacts due for follow-up) but provides no exclusions or comparisons to siblings. Given the simplicity of the tool, the lack of explicit guidance is a minor gap.

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