Check follow relationships

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read. The description adds the batching note — one call for a list, which is useful scale context, but there's no mention of output format, ordering, or per-account failure handling. Beyond annotations, the description contributes limited but relevant context.

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 two sentences, begins with the core purpose, and packs the main request/response shape (per account, follows/follows-back) and the main usage tip (batch before bulk operations) without any waste. Highly legible.

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 check with a clear input schema and no output schema, the description conveys what the tool does and when to reach for it. It omits the exact output shape, but the semantics of 'follows them' and 'follows back' are understandable and there is little hidden behavior for a read-only tool. A slightly richer description could mention the response for each actor (e.g., booleans), but the gap is not critical.

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 fully describes both parameters (actors, account), and the description does not add any parameter-specific semantics. With 100% schema coverage, this is the baseline 3; no extra meaning is provided beyond what the schema already gives.

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 states a precise verb ('check') and resource ('follow relationships'), and it tells the agent exactly what it returns — whether a connected account follows each named account and whether they follow back. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_followers or get_follows by focusing on relationship status, not lists of follows/followers.

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 explicitly says when to use it: before a bulk follow or unfollow, and discourages using it to read a profile every time. It names an alternative approach (reading profiles via a profile tool, likely get_profile), though it doesn't explicitly rule out other tools like get_followers. This is solid usage guidance.

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