mkt_followup_due

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 usefully declares the operation is read-only, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, volume of results, return shape, or whether the 7-day threshold is configurable — a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single short sentence with the read-only constraint front-loaded ahead of the two qualifying conditions. Efficient, though it is so terse that useful detail is omitted rather than trimmed.

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 one-parameter read query with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of what comes back (due-today contacts plus stale >7-day contacts). It falls short on the "on" parameter's meaning and on result shape, which an agent still needs to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter "on" is never mentioned in the description. The description's emphasis on "today" makes "on" almost certainly a reference-date override, but the agent must infer that entirely — exactly the case where the description should compensate and does not.

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 Chinese phrase "只读跟进" (read-only follow-up) plus the two criteria — who is due today and who has gone dark for more than 7 days — convey what the tool yields, but there is no clear verb+resource statement (list? query?) and no differentiation from the 40+ siblings, notably mkt_inbox or mkt_deal_next, which could plausibly serve the same need.

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?

"只读" (read-only) hints at the safety profile and thus implicitly contrasts with write-side tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call this or mkt_inbox to answer "who should I follow up with today?".

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