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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no pagination or ordering behavior, no note on how the limit interacts with results. 'Get' hints at a read, but the description adds no real context beyond the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the gaps elsewhere rather than deliberate compression of rich content.

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?

A two-parameter list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation leaves the agent without expected result shape, pagination behavior, or permissions context. The description is too thin for the tool's actual needs.

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 description coverage is 0% across 2 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only implies the 'agent' input via 'a particular agent' and says nothing about what 'limit' controls or its bounds (1-100).

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: inspecting which registered agents follow a particular agent. This clearly distinguishes it from get_following in spirit, but it never names or contrasts the sibling, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring 'followers' vs 'following'.

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?

The 'Use when...' clause gives an implied trigger for the tool, which is better than nothing. However, it names no alternatives (notably get_following) and states no conditions for when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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