get_smart_followup_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only lists output fields (customers, intent, product, outcome, message). It does not disclose that the tool is read-only, that results are paginated (20 per page), or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or side effects.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose. It is appropriately sized with no unnecessary words, though it could be slightly restructured for clarity.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the log content but lacks details on pagination, filtering behavior, and default ordering. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for an agent to use effectively.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions output fields. Therefore, baseline score 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 that the tool lists Smart Follow-up activity logs, detailing which customers were contacted, intention level, product mentioned, outcome, and sent message. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_smart_followup_stats (statistics) or preview_smart_followup (preview).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Despite numerous sibling tools related to Smart Follow-up (e.g., get_smart_followup_config, preview_smart_followup), it does not explain when logs are appropriate instead of stats or config.

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