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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: not that this is a read-only snapshot, not whether the token expires, not the shape of the returned positions, and not whether calling it mutates server state. Only the token's provenance is explained.

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?

It is very short, but it is two fragments rather than coherent sentences, and the purpose clause trails the token-sourcing clause instead of being front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, but the structure is sloppy enough to slow parsing.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least say what "state" contains and that the call is non-mutating. It leaves both unstated, so an agent cannot predict the return value or the safety profile before invoking.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states "token from subscribe_follow," so the description merely repeats it. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no length, format, or lifecycle detail about the token.

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 identifies the resource ("The bot's current positions") but is written as a sentence fragment with no verb, so the agent must infer that it fetches state. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like follow_events or get_status, which also sound like they return bot data.

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 gives a prerequisite ("a follow token from subscribe_follow") and an implied purpose ("to reconcile your own book"), which points at when to reach for it. However, it never contrasts this with follow_events or get_status, so the choice among siblings is left to inference.

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