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

Annotations already declare write, non-idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, and the description usefully translates the idempotency hint into a concrete consequence ("calling it twice creates two follow-ups") plus the underlying POST endpoint. It adds no detail on authorization, error behavior, or what the call returns, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, with the write nature front-loaded and the idempotency caveat placed before the endpoint reference. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 four-parameter create tool with full schema documentation and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and the key duplicate-creation hazard. The only gap is that, with no output schema, it does not indicate what the response contains (e.g. the created follow-up identifier).

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% and the description still adds light value by expanding the enum into readable record types, making clear that target_id refers to one of those records. No format or constraint details for due_date or note are added beyond the schema, so it stays near the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("schedule a follow-up") and enumerates the record kinds it can attach to, which separates it from generic create tools like street_create_note or street_create_task. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 target_type list implies when this tool applies (property, applicants, sale, valuation), but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose a follow-up versus a task or note, and no prerequisites are stated. Usage is inferable from the enumeration but not spelled out.

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