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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations: 6-hour polling cadence, baseline edges that pre-existed tracking and are never reported as dated follows, crossing of newly-followed handles with measured RobinX caller records, and the $0.02 USDC on Base cost with plan-key alternative. These are exactly the behavioral caveats an agent needs and none are derivable from the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the historical-uniqueness rationale, then layers filtering and pricing. Mostly dense and useful, though the trailing parenthetical pricing/plan-key sentence and the caller-record crossing clause make it longer than strictly needed for selection.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does reasonably: it describes timestamped events, baseline marking, and enriched caller records. It stops short of describing the actual response fields or confirming a returned pagination cursor, which is the main gap for a pollable endpoint.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates what the schema already documents ('since=<cursor>', 'watched=<handle>', 'event=follow|unfollow') and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema — e.g. it does not clarify whether the response returns a new cursor, despite mentioning cursor polling.

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 verb and resource ('follow/unfollow transitions') and narrows scope precisely to 'X accounts that matter on Robinhood Chain — the chain's principals and launchpad accounts'. It also gives cadence (every 6 hours) and event form (timestamped events), which makes it clearly separable from generic follow tooling like robinx_followed_by.

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?

Provides clear context for when this is the right tool: X exposes only current following state, so historical transitions cannot be reconstructed later — implying this is the durable-history source. It also explains how to consume it ('Pollable with since=<cursor>'). However, it never names an alternative sibling or states a when-not/exclusion condition, so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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