Check follow relationships

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it is a batch call and reports reciprocal mute/block state, which the schema and annotations do not convey.

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 with distinct jobs: the first defines the output semantics, the second gives usage context. There is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

Even without an output schema, the first sentence tells the caller what relationship data will be returned. The description plus annotations and schema cover the necessary safety, batching, and parameter context, though it does not spell out the exact response field names.

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 describes the optional 'account' parameter well, and the description supplies the missing semantics for the required 'accts' parameter by referring to 'each account named' and 'a whole list.' It does not fully formalize the items, but the combination is adequate.

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 identifies the operation: for each named account, it checks follow status in both directions and mutual mute/block status. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_account and get_followers by emphasizing batch relationship checks.

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?

It explicitly says to use this before a bulk follow or unfollow and contrasts it with the slower per-profile approach. It does not name a specific sibling for single-account use, but the guidance is concrete enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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