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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results come back newest-first in Street's fixed order (with no sort parameter visible in the schema), and pagination is the only navigation mechanism — useful for an agent planning a paging loop.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and the ordering, then pagination. The trailing 'GET /follow-ups' is marginal value but costs almost nothing.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape and ordering but silently omits the substantial filtering surface (branch, trashed, created/updated ranges, subject). An agent reading only the description would not know it can filter at all, though the schema compensates.

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%, so all 11 parameters are self-documenting; baseline 3 applies. The description echoes page/page_size and hints at the related-record dimension covered by subject/include, but adds no syntax or default detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List follow-ups') and enumerates the payload contents (due date, note, and the related property/applicant/sale/valuation), which separates it from list tools for those other resources. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like street_list_tasks, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 implied via pagination guidance ('page with page and page_size') and ordering, but there is no statement of when to reach for this versus street_list_tasks or a get-by-id tool, and no exclusions. An agent can infer the use case but gets no routing help.

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