Get follow suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety guarantees. It adds behavioral nuance beyond the schema by describing the two modes of suggestions and the niche-discovery use case, which helps the agent predict output semantics.

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 carry all essential information with no filler. The actor distinction is front-loaded, and the 'better way to find a niche' phrase earns its place by guiding usage without adding bulk.

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?

For a simple read-only suggestions tool with zero required parameters and heavily documented schema, the description plus annotations are sufficient for correct invocation. It does not describe the response shape, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with detailed descriptions, including the actor call pattern, limit bounds and default, and account selection fallback. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what is already structured, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 follow suggestions from Bluesky and distinguishes the actor-based mode from the default mode. It is specific about the resource ('accounts') and the action, though the first sentence is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit 'returns' statement.

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 actionable guidance: omit actor for personal suggestions, include actor to find similar accounts, and even calls the actor mode 'the better way to find a niche.' It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_actors, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to decide between default and actor-based calls.

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