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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: auth requirement, 'following grants no private access', the 50-base cap, update/caching semantics ('repeated publication of the same version creates no update'), no-store responses, and no email/push messaging. This is meaningful behavioral context, though some sentences describe following generally rather than this specific read.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is a compact series of short declaratives with no padding. A few trailing sentences (email/push, no-store) are tangential and read like a changelog rather than a definition, keeping it below 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, yet it never describes the shape of the following state returned. It covers prerequisites, limits, and update semantics well, but the read result itself is left unspecified.

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 the sole base_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (64 lowercase hex chars). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first clause states a specific verb+resource: 'Read your following state for one base.' An agent can distinguish this read from the sibling mutations follow_base/unfollow_base. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states a real prerequisite ('Requires a personal account or personal API key'), which is genuine when-to-use context, but never says when to choose this over follow_base, unfollow_base, or followed_base_updates. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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