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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: 'no signature' tells the agent no auth is required, and the caller note flags that results are viewpoint-dependent. Pagination behavior is disclosed, though only as a restatement of the schema bounds.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the auth/caller caveat, then pagination. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries more burden, but it conveys the result content (followed accounts), the caller-dependent nature, and pagination limits. What a returned record actually contains (addresses only? profile data?) is left unstated, which is the only remaining gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the description clarifies semantics the schema does not: `caller` is described as 'the account whose view to read (for caller-dependent results)' rather than merely 'run the query as', and the pagination defaults are restated in one place. This is modest added meaning above 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the accounts an account follows on Geode Social'), which immediately separates it from the follow/unfollow and profile siblings. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the 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 notes the operation is read-only and needs no signature, which is useful invocation context, and explains the `caller` viewpoint. However, it never states when to prefer this over adjacent reads like geode_social_get_account_profile or geode_profile_get_account_profile, nor any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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