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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only. The description adds valuable context: the tracker 'disappears from your stock tracker page' and you 'stop receiving its updates,' plus the safety note that your own trackers are unaffected. This goes beyond the annotation flags.

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 clear sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Each sentence adds relevant information without any fluff.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, the consequence, and the boundary (own trackers unaffected). It does not need to explain return values.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter `watchlist_slug` and even tells the user where to find it. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that it refers to a public tracker.

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 clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Stop following a public Stock Tracker.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools by clarifying that it affects only followed public trackers, not the user's own trackers.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you want to stop following a public tracker. It provides a clear boundary with 'Your own Stock Trackers are unaffected,' but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for handling your own trackers.

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