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

Annotations already declare idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds concrete behavioral context: following an already-followed wallet is a no-op and does not count against `max_follows`, no money moves, no agentic wallet is needed, and the call fails at the cap. These are exactly the side-effect and auth details an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by the key caveats. No filler or repeated information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining operational context needed to invoke correctly: public-only targeting, idempotency caveat, follow-cap behavior, and no agentic wallet requirement.

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 schema already documents `wallet_address` as a public wallet ref and `custom_name` with its 50-character limit. The description reinforces that the target must be public but does not explain `network` or `custom_name` behavior, so it adds only marginal meaning over the 67%-covered schema.

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, 'Follow', and resource, 'PUBLIC whale/KOL/trader wallet', and names the downstream effect in `get_my_following_feed`. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like `unfollow_wallet`, `discover_wallets_to_follow`, and `get_my_followed_wallets`.

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?

Explains the use case (followed wallet's trades appear in the following feed), constrains the target to PUBLIC wallets, and notes that it fails at the follow cap. It does not explicitly direct the agent to `discover_wallets_to_follow` for finding candidates, so alternative guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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