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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a mutation. The description adds that it operates on the 'connected personal account,' which provides some scope context. It does not disclose side effects like notifications or rate limits, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The primary action is stated first, followed by the critical prerequisite. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description, combined with detailed parameter descriptions and annotations, covers the essentials: what the tool does, the required prerequisite, and how to supply parameters. It omits handling of edge cases like already-followed users, but that is minor given the simplicity and the schema's thoroughness.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description for user_id adds substantial meaning: it explains what constitutes a valid ID (stable system ID), how to obtain it via three specific resolver tools, and what to avoid (URLs, names, company IDs). account_id also clarifies when to omit vs. pass it. This goes far beyond the schema's basic type and is highly actionable.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Follow a LinkedIn user from the connected personal account.' It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like linkedin_unfollow_user and linkedin_send_invitation by specifying the action of following.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to 'Resolve the exact provider user_id first,' which is a crucial prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., connecting vs. following) or mention when not to use the tool. The user_id parameter description adds rich detail on how to obtain the ID, but the main description lacks explicit exclusions.

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