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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds context beyond that: "Read only" as reinforcement and, more valuably, the human-in-the-loop workflow requiring the person be asked before answering, plus the confirm: true flag on the sibling.

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-loaded with the resource and its state, and every clause contributes meaning. The "Min kanal" parenthetical and the trailing answer_follow_request workflow add length, and "Read only" duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, so it is slightly less lean than it could be.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, state, what is returned, and the follow-up workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and return-value explanation is unnecessary given the output 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The field-level detail (name, @username, when they asked) describes output rather than inputs, which is richer than required but not parameter semantics.

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 the specific resource (people asking to follow the person's own channel, "Min kanal") and clarifies the state (waiting for their answer), plus what each entry contains. It names the sibling answer_follow_request, so an agent can distinguish the read of pending requests from the act of answering them without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to the alternative: "To answer, ask the person, then answer_follow_request with confirm: true." This gives both the alternative tool and the prerequisite (consult the person first). It lacks an explicit negative boundary (e.g., when not to call it), so it stops short of a full 5.

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