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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety. The description adds useful behavioral detail: events are confirmed, ordering is newest-first, and there is a 200-item cap. It does not discuss pagination or response format, but it meaningfully extends beyond 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence conveys purpose, scope, ordering, and limit; the second states filtering options. Every clause contributes useful information, and the key identifying detail is front-loaded.

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?

As a read-only, two-parameter list tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers what events are returned, their ordering, the limit, and available filters. The only notable omission is explicit routing guidance against sibling tools like get_follower_history, but this is not critical given the strong purpose clarity.

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%, with both show and contestant already documented using examples and lookup guidance. The description only says 'filter by season and/or contestant,' which adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a clear verb and resource: confirmed follow/unfollow events among castmates, newest first, capped at 200. It differentiates this from sibling tools like get_follower_history or get_follow_graph by making clear this is a discrete event list rather than historical counts or relationship structure.

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?

The description gives a clear usage context: use this tool to fetch confirmed follow/unfollow events and optionally narrow by season and/or contestant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the focus on events makes the intended use easy to infer relative to the sibling tools.

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