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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the tool read-only, describes default scoping to the last 14 days, lists returned fields, maps status semantics, and explains workspace defaults. It does not mention pagination, sort order, or row limits, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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 information-dense and front-loads the main purpose, but it is a single convoluted paragraph with heavy parentheticals and semicolons. It remains readable but could be structured more cleanly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains returned row fields and state values. It covers the essential filter defaults and read-only nature, leaving only minor operational details such as pagination or sort order unstated.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates by explaining all four parameters: note, workspace, status, and mine. It adds meaning for status values beyond the enum and clarifies default scoping, though 'mine' gets only a brief gloss.

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 — a call's 'Get it done' follow-up rows — and clearly distinguishes the two modes: with a note vs. without a note across recent calls. It also explicitly differentiates itself from followup_act, which changes state.

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?

Explains the conditional behavior of using note vs. omitting note, gives default status behavior, and names followup_act as the alternative for mutations. An agent can select this tool and know when not to use it for state changes.

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