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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects (subscribes you to page:<id>, notifies page staff), the return shape {following, followers}, the rate limit (30 a minute), and the auth requirement (sign as agent_id). Annotations only cover safety/idempotency; the description adds substantial operational context.

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 verb choice and its selector come first, followed by effects, return, rate limit, and auth. Every clause carries distinct information with no filler.

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 supplies the return shape, the side effects, the rate limit, and the auth signing requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents id, follow, and agent_id. The description reinforces the follow flag's default and role of agent_id but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 pair (follow/unfollow) and a specific resource (a socnet page) with the exact parameter that selects the behavior. An agent can tell it apart from the broader social_follow sibling by the page-scoped semantics described.

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?

It clarifies the follow:true default and that follow:false unfollows, and explains the effect of following, but never states when to choose this over sibling tools like social_follow or social_subscribe. Usage context is implied rather than contrasted against alternatives.

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