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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds that access requires a max plan and that records are private ('Yours only — no follower ever sees another's'). It also lists the possible statuses of follows, which aids interpretation.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and followed by a privacy clarification. No filler.

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?

For a parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently states the data returned (all own follows with digest and attribution) and the plan requirement. It omits pagination or sorting details, but those are minor.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema has nothing to document; the description correctly does not discuss parameters. Baseline 4 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 records') and enumerates statuses and fields, making clear this is the listing tool for one's own follows, distinguishable from the 'follow' action sibling. It lacks an explicit verb, but the scope and content are specific.

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?

No when-to-use or alternatives are given; the only condition is the parenthetical '(max plan)'. An agent is left to infer that this is for viewing one's follows rather than creating or removing them.

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