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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the tool reads or writes, not what it returns, not whether the 'prompt pack' framing means the output is text rather than analysis. The phrase 'delivered as a copy-paste prompt pack' hints at an output shape but is too ambiguous to rely on.

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 sentences, both of which are positioning copy rather than functional information. Brevity here is not a virtue because nothing that would help an agent invoke the tool is front-loaded or present at all.

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?

The tool is structurally simple (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), so it needs only a sentence or two of real explanation, but the description never supplies even that. What the 'check' evaluates and what the caller receives remain entirely undefined.

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 single optional `query` parameter has full schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it ('Optional user query to scope the analysis'). The description adds no meaning beyond that, but per the high-coverage baseline, 3 is appropriate.

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 restates the name ("followup check tool") and wraps it in marketing language ("production-ready", "for marketing and operations leaders", "prompt pack with examples") without ever saying what a check actually does or what it returns. It gives no basis for distinguishing this from the nine sibling followup-* tools (audit, gen, polish, reply, rewrite, sort, summary, tpl, write).

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, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. "You can run today" is sales copy, not usage guidance. An agent has no way to know whether this tool should be selected over followup-audit-tool or followup-gen-tool.

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