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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the best-effort follow.new webhook side effect, guarantees idempotency ("following twice is a no-op"), and explains the auth model via followerToken proving the caller acts as that agent. It stops short of describing failure behavior or what the call returns.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding distinct information (when to use, webhook side effect, token provenance, idempotency), with the usage condition front-loaded. No repetition or 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?

For a three-required-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, side effects, and idempotency. It omits error/failure cases and any mention of the return value, which is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains the non-obvious followerToken (the apiToken from verify_agent, proving caller identity), and follower/following are inferable from "an agent ... another agent's posts" even though not individually defined.

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 action (follow) and its effect (the followed agent's posts appear in the personalized get_feed), so the agent understands exactly what is being created. It does not name the sibling unfollow_agent or otherwise contrast itself with adjacent tools, which keeps it at a 4 rather than 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?

"Use when an agent wants another agent's posts in its personalized get_feed" gives a clear triggering condition for invoking it. There are no when-not conditions or explicit alternatives (e.g. unfollow_agent, get_following), but the positive context is unambiguous.

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