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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious side effect: the caller's Following-feed history for this wallet is cleared so get_my_following_feed reflects the change immediately. "Moves no money" also pre-empts a reasonable agent worry on a trading platform. This is disclosure beyond structured metadata.

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, each carrying distinct information: the action, the idempotency guarantee, the feed-history side effect, and the no-funds reassurance. Front-loaded and free of repetition.

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 no explanation, and the two-parameter surface is simple. The description covers the state-change semantics and side effects an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 50%: wallet_address is documented as coming from get_my_followed_wallets, while network is a fixed const with a default and needs no prose. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Unfollow a wallet") that cleanly pairs with the sibling follow_wallet, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema. The scope of the action is unambiguous.

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 idempotency clause ("a no-op if the caller does not follow it") tells the agent it can call this defensively without checking state first. It never names follow_wallet as the inverse or states prerequisites, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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