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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and absence of readOnly, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the entitlement prerequisite (starter plan or above), which is behavioral context the annotations do not carry and which directly affects whether the call is permitted.

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 with the action first and the qualifiers in parentheses. Slightly cluttered by stacked parentheticals, and the title is visibly truncated ('(stock'), but the body wastes no words.

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 two-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the key formats, and the plan prerequisite. The only thin spot is that the required 'sector' scoping is left entirely to the schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by giving concrete target-key formats (stock:SMMT, asset:<slug>, calendar:<id>), which materially clarifies what the 'id' parameter accepts.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a follow'), and specifies the two lookup modes (by id or by target key). It is easy to distinguish from the sibling sectors_follow, though it never names that counterpart explicitly.

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 supplies a real prerequisite ('needs the starter plan or above'), which is useful context for whether the call can succeed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance against sectors_follow or any other sibling, so usage is only implied.

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