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

Annotations only declare the tool is a destructive, non-read-only open-world operation; the description adds substantial context beyond that: the pending-until-accepted semantics, the 'already' return, the absence of an unfollow, and the full bridge.nextStep protocol including the retry limit of two.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the primary action and the mutual distinction come first, followed by error-handling detail. Every sentence carries operational value, though the bridge passage is long and could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the observable return states ('already') and the bridge error protocol, including exact next-step handling and retry guidance. An agent has everything needed to invoke and recover correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about `mutual` (it sends a request the other blog must accept, otherwise immediate plain-neighbor) that goes beyond the schema's one-line description. It does not add anything for message/accountId/workspaceId.

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?

States a specific verb (Follow) and resource (an account/blog on the channel), scoped to Naver Blog. It is immediately distinguishable from ambiguous siblings like like, reply, or send_dm.

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?

Clearly explains the two modes (mutual:true vs plain neighbor), the already-a-neighbor outcome, and that there is no unfollow. It does not, however, name any alternative sibling tools or broader when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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