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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the ordering of results and the fact that `narrative` carries the answer, which is useful given no output schema. It does not explain pagination or volume.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the resource and the call condition come first. The phrase 'Its `narrative` is the answer' is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, when to call it, result ordering, and parameter semantics. The only gap is the exact shape of the returned records, which is partially mitigated by pointing at `narrative`.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain the status enum's meaning beyond the raw values — notably that 'active' is the default and expands to 'open + due'. That is real semantic value the schema does not provide, though it does not define each remaining state.

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?

States a specific resource ('the seller's follow-ups') and adds ordering semantics ('what is due now first, then what is still waiting'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate from potentially overlapping siblings like daily_brief, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Call it at the start of a conversation' gives a clear triggering condition, which is strong usage guidance. It names no exclusions or alternatives (e.g. complete_follow_up / schedule_follow_up), so it is clear context without the full when-not framing.

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