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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned metrics, which is some behavioral value, but it says nothing about scope (all-time vs. ranged), aggregation granularity, or whether data is expensive to compute.

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?

A single compact sentence-fragment that front-loads the subject and immediately lists the three things returned. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 is the only source of return-value information, and it gives only a bulleted sketch of three metrics. There is no mention of time range, grouping, or response format, which an agent would need to interpret the stats correctly.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage), including the hint to get it from dosai_list_projects. The description adds no additional meaning about the project_id, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource (follow-ups) and enumerates the metrics returned: clients by status, replies after each touch, and spend. That is specific enough for an agent to know it retrieves follow-up performance statistics, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like dosai_get_analytics or dosai_get_funnel.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many adjacent read tools (dosai_get_analytics, dosai_get_funnel, dosai_get_overview) or the raw listing tools (dosai_list_followups, dosai_list_followup_steps). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the metric list.

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