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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: the user-visible effect on the following feed, a hard restriction (cannot follow own fund), and that omitting follow toggles existing state. It does not cover error behavior when the constraint is violated or idempotency, keeping it below 5.

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?

Purpose and restriction are front-loaded in two short sentences, then parameters in a compact Args block. Every line conveys information an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and both parameters plus the self-follow restriction are covered. It is slightly incomplete on what happens on a rejected self-follow or whether unfollowing removes past feed items, but nothing essential to invoking it 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 0% and the schema only shows follow as a nullable boolean with default null, so the description supplies crucial meaning: true=follow, false=unfollow, omit=toggle. That non-obvious tri-state behavior is not inferable from the schema and materially changes how an agent calls the tool.

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 and resource ('Follow a fund') plus the observable effect ('its posts surface in your following feed tab'), which is more than the bare name. It does not name a sibling (e.g. get_follow_state) to disambiguate against, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a real usage constraint ('You can't follow your own fund') and explains the follow flag's toggle behavior, which is genuinely helpful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_follow_state or read_feed, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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