Check follow relationships

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it is a single batch call covering a whole list, and it discloses the two-directional result (follows / follows back) that the agent will receive, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and then the routing guidance. Minimal waste; the only blemish is the opening fragment, which reads slightly awkwardly but stays efficient.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description usefully explains the shape of the result (per-account follows/follows-back booleans) and the batch scope. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note the 30-account cap or auth expectations.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description implies the 'actors' list ('for each account named') and the acting account ('a connected account'), but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific operation: for each named account, report whether a connected account follows them and whether they follow back. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_profile and get_followers by being a batch, bidirectional relationship check. The first sentence is a sentence fragment, but the meaning is clear.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('before a bulk follow or unfollow') and names an alternative to avoid ('rather than reading a profile each time', i.e. get_profile). It does not state a when-not condition (e.g. for a single account), so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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