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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond structured fields: public data, credential-free, sourced from the AT Protocol's public AppView API. It stops short of describing result shape, but an output schema exists.

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 purpose, then provenance, then params, then the sibling pointer in a tight sequence. Minor waste: the actor and cursor clauses repeat schema text verbatim rather than adding value.

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 paginated read endpoint with annotations and a full output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing: purpose, provenance, param formats, and the alternative tool are all present.

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 schema already documents all three parameters; description restates the actor and cursor definitions verbatim and never mentions limit. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting with no meaningful added 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 a specific verb and resource ('Returns a page of the accounts a Bluesky account follows') and names the sibling it must not be confused with, bluesky_followers. An agent can disambiguate follows vs followers 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: 'Use bluesky_followers to retrieve a Bluesky account's followers.' It also explains cursor provenance ('from a previous response's cursor field'), covering both the when-to-use and pagination mechanics.

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