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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context ('reminding after they went silent') and lists returned fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result size beyond what the schema states, so it only marginally exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then the returned fields. No wasted words, though the parenthetical is slightly awkwardly embedded.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (status, touch count, next touch time). Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the definition is nearly complete, with the main gap being no differentiation from related follow-up tools.

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 page, limit, and project_id are fully documented in the schema (including defaults and max values). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 a specific resource (clients the bot is currently following up) and clarifies the scope with a parenthetical (reminding after they went silent), plus enumerates returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like dosai_list_followup_steps or dosai_get_followup_stats, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dosai_list_followup_steps, dosai_get_followup_stats, or dosai_list_leads. The description implies a read use case but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to route the agent correctly.

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