Get follow suggestions

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat that. It adds a hint about the 'actor' behavior and the suggestion basis, but does not disclose other operational details (e.g., how suggestions are generated for the logged-in user, rate limits). Given the strong annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the core function and then adding the key actor nuance. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the main purpose and the actor special case. Minor omission: it doesn't mention the 'account' parameter for multi-account scenarios, but that is fully covered in the schema.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline expected. No reason to score higher.

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's function: returning accounts Bluesky suggests following. It highlights the actor parameter's special behavior (finding similar accounts), which distinguishes it from related tools like follow or search_actors. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides practical usage context: with an actor, it finds similar accounts and labels that as 'the better way to find a niche.' This implies when to use the tool (discovery) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. Slight gap for not referencing sibling search tools.

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