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

Annotations already establish non-destructive, idempotent, non-read-only behavior, yet the description still adds real value by spelling out the blast radius: the follow is not deleted, shared company indexing is unaffected, and other follows are not paused. It does not state how the pause is lifted, but following.resume covers that path.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the scope limits immediately after. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, the single parameter is fully documented, and the description closes the main ambiguity an agent would have about side effects. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter and the schema documents follow_id at 100% coverage with a valuable disambiguation ('not company.id'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, but per the baseline rule for full coverage a 4 is appropriate given it is a one-parameter tool.

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 (pause) and a specific scope (future matching openings for this follow), and explicitly distinguishes the action from deletion. It does not name the sibling tools it complements (following.resume, following.unfollow), so an agent must infer the pairing from the sibling list.

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?

The description implies the usage condition (you want to stop matching openings without removing the follow) and draws negative boundaries around company indexing and other follows. However, it never names following.resume or following.unfollow as alternatives, so the when-to-use-this-vs-that guidance is only implied.

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