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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the authentication requirement ('Needs a key') and links to docs, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose side effects or behavior beyond that, such as what happens if the wallet isn't being followed. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two short sentences with no fluff: it states the purpose first and then the key requirement. It is well-front-loaded and every word 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 one-parameter tool, the description provides the core purpose and the authentication requirement. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it (e.g., only if currently following) and doesn't mention any return behavior or potential errors. Given the simplicity and the annotations, it's adequate but could be more 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'address' with description 'The wallet.' and a pattern for Ethereum addresses. Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is documented. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Stops following a wallet.' The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the inverse relationship to follow_wallet is evident from the name and title, so it's clear but lacks an explicit distinguishing statement.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must currently be following the wallet) or cases where it should not be used. The only extra instruction is about needing a key, which addresses authentication rather than usage context.

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