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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral guarantee: 'Reachability is not delivery; unknown is never claimed sent,' which tells the agent how unknown outcomes are represented. It does not cover auth or output shape, but the output schema handles returns.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a compact semantic caveat. There is no filler, and both sentences carry useful information.

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?

The output schema and annotations carry return-shape and safety information, so the description need not explain those. However, it omits what 'follow-up evidence' actually contains and does not help route between this read tool and the surrounding follow-up action siblings, leaving the definition only marginally self-contained.

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%, with both required UUID parameters documented and cross-referenced to agents_list/agent_create and inbox_list/conversations_search. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a verb and resource ('Reports follow-up evidence'), but 'evidence' is abstract and it never explicitly says this lists or reads follow-ups. It also does not differentiate the tool from siblings such as engineering_follow_up_handle, engineering_follow_up_retry, engineering_reconcile, or engineering_resolve_unknown.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling to prefer. An agent reading only the description cannot tell whether this is the read path for follow-up status versus one of the many follow-up action tools.

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