is_following_tag

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior: it is a read-style predicate returning true/false based on the authenticated user's follow status. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention auth failure behavior, or describe edge cases, but for such a simple check the essential behavior is conveyed.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning. The level of detail is appropriate for a simple boolean-check tool.

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?

Despite the tool's low complexity, the description is incomplete because the `city` parameter is undocumented, there is no output schema to rely on, and no behavior is described beyond the boolean result. The description does not fully prepare an agent to handle all valid inputs or know what context affects the answer.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It only gives meaning to `tag`; the optional `city` parameter is not mentioned or explained at all. An agent cannot tell whether `city` affects the follow check, filters results, or is irrelevant, which is a significant gap.

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 tool returns a boolean indicating whether the authenticated user follows a specific `tag`. It names the exact resource being checked (tag) and therefore differentiates itself from the sibling `is_following_user` without needing to open the schema.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need to know whether the authenticated user follows a tag. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like `is_following_user`, `follow_user`, or `related_tags`.

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