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

Annotations already state readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: the result content differs by mode, and the no-argument mode implicitly requires the user to have connected a Foundaree account. It does not mention pagination, limits, or what a missing/invalid id returns.

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?

Opens with the scoping statement ('One place to follow up') then walks the three input cases in order, matching the agent's decision flow. Three sentences, no filler; the only mild cost is the long trailing clause in the last mode.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so per mode. What's missing is disambiguation from the similarly named siblings and any note on precedence when both ids are passed, which matters for a two-optional-parameter tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains what each id selects and, critically, that omitting both is a valid mode with its own result set (required parameters = 0). It does not clarify precedence if both ids are supplied.

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 defines a specific follow-up tool and enumerates exactly what is returned in each of three input modes (bookingId, errandId, neither), which is far more informative than the vague name 'check'. It never contrasts itself with close-looking siblings like check_errand, my_bookings, or my_connection_requests, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 spelled out conditionally: pass bookingId when following up on a book call, pass errandId when following up on find_and_ask, and omit both for an account overview. That gives clear context for every input combination, but there are no exclusions or pointers to the overlapping siblings an agent would otherwise have to disambiguate manually.

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