get_followup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns details, but does not mention error behavior for nonexistent IDs, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a read operation, the behavior is predictable, but the lack of any behavioral detail is a gap.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence. It conveys the essential action and object with no wasted words, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 single-parameter get-by-ID tool, the description is minimally sufficient to understand its purpose. However, it omits return format, error scenarios, and any prerequisites. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is not fully complete but adequate for basic selection.

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 description does not explain the followup_id parameter beyond the schema. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value, and the rubric requires compensation for low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retourne') and resource ('détail d'un suivi spécifique'), clearly indicating it fetches a single follow-up record. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_followups (list) and add_followup (create), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool is for retrieving one follow-up by ID, especially when a list is already available. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like list_followups or get_ticket, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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