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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=falseanding idempotentHint=true, so the description carries less burden. It adds the key behavioral distinction ('without connecting') and notes the unfollow behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention idempotency or any side effects beyond the basic action, so it stops at adequate.

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 short sentences. The primary action is stated first, and the edge case (follow=false) is tied to the schema parameter without redundancy. Every word earns its 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?

The description covers what the tool does and the one behavior flip (follow/unfollow). With an output schema present and detailed parameter descriptions in the schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values or every parameter. It is complete for an action with a small, clearly defined surface.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'Set follow=false to unfollow', which slightly reinforces the parameter's meaning, but this is already fully described in the schema (`True to follow, False to unfollow`). No additional semantic value beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Follow or unfollow') with a clear resource ('a LinkedIn member') and explicitly states the scope ('without connecting'). The 'without connecting' phrase distinguishes it from the sibling `connect` tool.

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 phrase 'without connecting' directly signals when to use this tool instead of `connect` or `withdraw_invitation`. It doesn't enumerate explicit exclusions, but the primary alternative is clearly distinguished. A small deduction for not naming the sibling explicitly.

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