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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing RLS scoping and the concrete pagination contract: max 200, pagination.total, has_more, and next_cursor. No annotation contradiction exists.

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?

Two concise sentences carry all essential information: the core action, scoping, filter capabilities, and pagination behavior. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the main selection and invocation needs: resource, scope, filters, limit, and pagination shape. A minor gap is the ambiguous 'or' in the filter list, since it does not explicitly state whether filters can be combined, and the RLS acronym is not expanded.

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 description summarizes the filter parameters as completion, assignee, or reference, which maps to completed, assigned_to, reference_id, and reference_type. However, with schema description coverage at 57%, it does not add much detail beyond parameter names, such as value formats, reference_type pairing semantics, or whether filters can be combined.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List follow-up tasks'. This clearly distinguishes the operation from the create/update/delete/restore follow-up siblings, and the 'RLS-scoped' qualifier plus filter list further clarifies exactly what the tool returns.

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 clear context: it is a scoped list operation with filtering and pagination. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but no sibling getter for follow-ups exists, so the implied usage is clear enough.

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