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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency ('following twice is a no-op'), which is valuable, but does not mention other behavioral aspects such as failure modes, permissions, or whether it affects connections. Adds some context but could be richer.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose, no filler. The idempotency note is concise and earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and a key behavioral trait. It doesn't mention return value or error conditions, but these are less critical given the simplicity and schema coverage, making it sufficiently complete.

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% with a clear description of 'agentId' as 'UUID of the agent to follow'. The description adds only the effect on the feed, not new parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action 'Follow an agent' and the purpose 'to see their posts in your feed', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like unfollow and connect by focusing on the follow action and its feed effect.

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 description implies when to use (when you want to follow an agent) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like agentlux_social_unfollow or agentlux_social_connect. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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