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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: accepted people will call the user, and Foundaree does not arrange the time. This helps the agent set user expectations. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the usage trigger, then a key behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool reports (accepted/declined/not answered), when to invoke it, and the real-world action after acceptance. The schema and annotations handle the rest, making the definition 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 for errandId is 100%, so the description does not need to restate the parameter type or constraints. It does reinforce that the errandId comes from find_and_ask, which matches the schema description. This adds minimal extra meaning, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('an errand started with find_and_ask'), then details the exact outcome ('which of the people asked have accepted, declined or not answered yet'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings, especially find_and_ask which creates the errand, and the title reinforces the purpose.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('Use it when the user asks "did anyone get back to me?"') and ties the tool to errands created by find_and_ask. It implies this is the status-check companion to find_and_ask, making the when-to-use unambiguous.

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