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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful shape about what is returned (message text, timing in hours, on/off state) but says nothing about permissions, ordering, or pagination. Adequate value beyond the annotations, not rich.

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 tight sentence that front-loads what the tool surfaces (content, timing, enabled state) before the trailing action hint. No filler. It could be marginally tighter, but nothing is wasted.

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 present, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by naming the three fields the agent will see. The remaining gap is disambiguation from dosai_list_followups and any note on ordering, which for a small read-only listing tool is a minor omission rather than a blocker.

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 single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'as returned by dosai_list_projects' cross-reference, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'ids' refers to output step ids routed to update_followup_step rather than to the input parameter, so it adds no input-side semantics.

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 the specific resource (the follow-up chain) and enumerates exactly what it returns: the message content, the delay in hours, and the enabled flag. This is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It loses a point because it never names or distinguishes itself from the very close sibling dosai_list_followups, leaving the agent to infer which listing tool to call.

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?

'Use the ids to change a step' gives a forward pointer to a mutation flow, implying read-then-update via dosai_update_followup_step. That is genuine but implicit usage context rather than explicit when/when-not guidance, and it offers no rule for choosing between this tool and dosai_list_followups.

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