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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real context: it performs dual search (by meaning and by words), and returns the follow object, its feed address, and the items that already match. It does not address whether repeated calls create duplicates, a gap given idempotentHint=false.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and followed by the mechanism and return. Slightly dense punctuation but every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully names what is returned (the follow, its feed URL, current matches). With all params documented and safety covered by annotations, only edge cases like re-following the same topic are unaddressed.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description reinforces consulta as natural language with two concrete examples, but adds nothing about nombre or capsulas beyond what the schema states. 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Deja vigilado un tema' (creates a monitored topic), with concrete example queries. It is distinguishable from siblings like dejar_de_seguir and seguimientos by the creation semantics, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the natural-language framing ('descrito en lenguaje normal' with examples), which signals when this applies. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as buscar (one-off search) or seguimientos (list existing follows), and no exclusions.

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