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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that bar: no default page size, no ordering, no note on how cursor pagination terminates, and no hint about the required `purpose` argument's effect.

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?

It is a single short sentence with zero padding, so nothing is wasted. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity: the one sentence carries almost no information, so brevity here buys little.

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?

This is an 8-parameter, filter-heavy list tool with no output schema and no pagination defaults disclosed, so the description should carry more weight than one clause. An agent cannot tell from the description what a page contains, how results are ordered, or which filter combinations matter.

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 description coverage is 100% across all 8 parameters, so the schema already explains limit, cursor, status, lead_id, ticket_id, assignee_id, and has_lead. The description contributes no additional meaning, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate, though note the counterintuitive `has_lead` semantics live only in the schema.

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?

"Lists SautiDesk follow-up tasks" gives a verb and a resource, but it largely restates the tool name and annotation title ("List SautiDesk tasks"), with only "follow-up" adding any narrowing. It does nothing to distinguish this from near siblings such as desk_list_tickets, desk_list_leads, or desk_list_activity_comments.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of whether this is for triaging open work, checking a specific lead's follow-ups, or building a report. No alternatives are named, even though siblings like desk_list_leads and desk_get_ticket cover adjacent retrieval needs.

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