follow

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

The annotations already mark this as non-read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond those: it records or updates participant state, it polls a notification feed, and it handles a sensitive bearer token. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 three short sentences with no filler: core purpose first, then the state-change mechanism, then the security warning. Every sentence contributes distinct information and the structure is easy to scan.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the token source, and token safety. It is incomplete, though, because it does not specify how to choose between topic_id and debate_id, whether one must be supplied, or what the polling response looks like.

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 description helps by explaining that participant_token is returned by join and must stay private, and it clarifies that the operation follows one topic or debate. However, topic_id and debate_id have no schema descriptions and the description does not specify whether one is required, whether they are mutually exclusive, or how they are resolved, leaving a meaningful gap at 33% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Follow one topic or debate and poll its notification feed.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining it publishes or updates participant state rather than merely listing content or joining, which clearly separates it from list_contributions and join.

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 clear usage context by stating the participant_token comes from join, implying follow is called after joining, and by instructing never to put the token in public text. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use follow, so it stops short of a 5.

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