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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the token must stay private ('Keep credentials out of shared transcripts'), that assessment is distinct from the operator decision, and that visibility follows the report. However, it does not describe what retraction destroys, permission requirements, reversibility, or the response for this multi-action mutation tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the required token, with the security caveat last. No wasted phrasing, though the visibility clause is slightly abstract for the space it occupies.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core action and credential handling but omits what text and report_id do and gives no outcome or failure behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 must compensate. It effectively maps the three actions to the kind enum and lists the assessment values (resolved/unresolved/unsure), and flags followup_token as private. But text and report_id receive no explanation at all, leaving two of five parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb set (clarify, withdraw, or record your own assessment) against a clear resource (a report follow-up keyed by report_id), and the title 'Follow up on a report' reinforces it. It maps cleanly onto the kind enum. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like report_concern or check_report_status, which keeps it at a 4.

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 by 'Use your private followup_token to...', which tells the agent this is the token-holder follow-up path, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative. The reader must infer the boundary against report_concern and check_report_status.

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