check_following

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the auto-chunking behavior, which is useful. However, it does not mention other important traits like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but minimal disclosure.

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 concise, with the main purpose stated first, followed by the auto-chunking detail, and then parameter explanations. No unnecessary words; every sentence provides useful 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, input constraints (50 IDs chunking), and parameter semantics. The output schema handles return values, so completeness is adequate.

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 adds value. It explains follow_type as 'artist' or 'user', and ids as 'List of Spotify artist or user IDs (not URIs).' This clarifies the allowed values and format beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 checks following status for artists or users, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like follow_artists_or_users (which performs follow action) and get_followed_artists (which lists all followed artists).

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 mentions auto-chunking at 50 IDs per request, which guides usage for large inputs. It implies the tool is for checking specific IDs rather than listing all followed artists, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives. Still, clear context for appropriate use.

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