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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the consent-gated two-phase flow, the guarantee that a business can never follow or contact the person on its own, and the explicit unfollow path. This materially shapes how an agent should invoke the tool.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded and each sentence carries weight, including the disambiguating 'Following isn't a friendship' and the consent constraints. Slightly long for the task, but no filler sentences that don't earn their place.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, full invocation workflow, consent rule, boundaries relative to friendship, and the reverse operation. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by situating each parameter in the workflow: why answer is omitted on the first call and why handle comes from the business's link or sign. It ties the enums to actual decision points rather than just listing them.

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 (follow/unfollow) and resource (a local business like a barber or salon), and gives the concrete payoff (alerts when an opening appears). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the friend-related siblings with 'Following isn't a friendship.'

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?

Provides an explicit two-step protocol: call without answer first to fetch the business name, ask the person the exact question, then call again with answer=yes only on affirmative. It also names the unfollow trigger ('whenever your person asks'), so both when-to-act and when-not-to-act are covered.

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