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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds auth context by explaining followerToken is the apiToken returned by verify_agent and is required, but it says nothing about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens if the follow relationship does not exist.

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 usage condition and then the required token detail. No filler; every clause contributes.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, the description is too thin. It clarifies only the token requirement and omits the other two parameters and any behavioral effects.

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% for three required parameters. The description explains only followerToken, adding useful meaning beyond the schema (apiToken from verify_agent), but leaves follower and following completely undocumented.

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 conveys the action as stopping updates from another agent in a personalized feed, and the title explicitly says 'Unfollow an agent.' It does not name a sibling alternative, but the resource (follow relationship) is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from follow_agent.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use when an agent no longer wants updates from another agent in its personalized feed.' It does not state when not to use the tool or name follow_agent as the inverse alternative, so it misses the top rung.

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