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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds only a vague indication of returned content ('rules and what the engine reports'), without explaining format, errors, or what happens when the follower is not found.

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?

The description is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is too under-specified to be well structured for tool selection. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity rather than from disciplined front-loading.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter get tool, but there is no output schema, so the description should carry more weight in explaining what is returned. 'Rules and what the engine reports' is too vague to tell an agent what to expect from a successful or failed retrieval.

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%, and both copier_id and follower_id are clearly documented, including the useful note that follower_id is not the account ID. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 title supplies the verb 'Retrieve', but the description itself is a noun fragment: 'The follower's rules and what the engine reports about it.' It gestures at the returned data without clearly stating the operation, and it does not distinguish this from siblings like list_followers or update_follower.

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 versus list_followers, get_copier, or update_follower. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites beyond the obvious required IDs in the schema.

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