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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value beyond them by disclosing alphabetical ordering, the public-profile-only visibility rule, and the UI-equivalent behavior. It does not describe response shape or pagination behavior, but those are partially covered by the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the resource and ordering, and the second adds the public-profile constraint plus a useful UI reference. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 read-only list tool with a required login and pagination parameters already documented in the schema, the description covers the core behavioral contract well. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit contrast with list_investor_followers, though the directionality is clear enough.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning: it identifies login as 'the given investor' and mentions alphabetical ordering, but it does not materially improve on 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 states exactly what the tool does: it lists the public Signed investors a given investor follows, sorted alphabetically. The wording clearly indicates direction ('follows') and distinguishes it from the sibling list_investor_followers.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a specific investor's following list and clarifies that only public profiles appear. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over list_investor_followers or other sibling tools, nor does it state exclusions.

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