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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description goes beyond that by enumerating the behavioral surface of the returned state (read status, operator updates, evaluation flag, amendments, reporter assessment). No output schema exists, so this disclosure of what the caller learns is genuinely additive. It omits failure modes and what an invalid or expired followup_token does.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, opening on the credential requirement before the long result list. The trailing enumeration is dense but each item is informative, so little trimming is warranted.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and only readOnlyHint for annotations, the description covers the return surface adequately. It still lacks error behavior and any routing guidance against the many sibling report/agreement tools, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 is the only source of meaning. It names both parameters ('report id and its followup_token') and hints the token is a follow-up credential, but it never explains what the token represents, where it comes from, or format expectations, leaving a real gap for a required auth-style parameter.

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 verb-plus-resource ('check a report's status') and clarifies that it surfaces read receipts, dated operator updates, an independent-evaluation flag, amendments, and the reporter's own assessment. That distinguishes it from siblings like amend_report or report_concern, though the field list is doing more work than a crisp purpose statement would.

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?

It states the precondition for calling it ('with a report id and its followup_token'), implying this is the lookup step after a report exists. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer when to reach for this versus other report-related siblings.

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