find_outreach_followups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns structured candidates with status, risk labels, and evidence snippets, implying a read/classify operation. However, it does not explain how risk or follow-up status is determined, what status values are possible, or whether the tool only inspects outbound Tyler messages.

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 one focused sentence that states the action, the resource, and the output shape. It has no redundant clauses, does not duplicate schema details, and is easy to scan.

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 tool with 4 optional and fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description does a solid job by noting what kinds of results are returned. It would be more complete with explicit mention of what status/risk labels mean or an example, but the overall complexity is low enough that the current description is adequate.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with complete descriptions, so the description does not need to restate them. The schema descriptions already explain the meaning of limit, hours_ago, max_results, and outreach_terms, and the description itself adds little parameter-level semantics.

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 the specific verb 'Find' with a distinct resource ('SMS outreach conversations that need agent review or follow-up') and clearly names what is returned: structured candidates with status, risk labels, and evidence snippets. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like read_recent_messages or search_messages, which are more general chat lookup tools.

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 clearly implies the intended use case: triage or surface SMS outreach conversations that an agent should review or follow up on. It gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of fully explicit usage guidance.

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