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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/irreversibility profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by naming the concrete side effect (their positions are removed from your feed) and the auth prerequisite (requires login). It stops short of noting reversibility or rate limits.

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 with the destructive action and its effect front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and alternatives. No clause is 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 destructive single-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, side effect, auth requirement, and both related sibling tools. Given annotations already carry the safety hints, this is close to complete; only failure-mode behavior is unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does clarify that `trader_username` is a paper-trading username rather than a real account handle, which is meaningful, but gives no format, casing, or validation detail.

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 (unfollow) plus the resource identified by a precise locator (paper-trading username), and explicitly names the sibling it is the inverse of (`follow_trader`). An agent can distinguish it from `unfollow_position` and `following` without opening any schema.

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?

It routes the agent to `following` for inspecting the follow list and to `follow_trader` as the undo path, which is clear alternative guidance. It does not state explicit when-not conditions (e.g. what happens if the username isn't followed), so it falls short of a full 5.

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