Follow

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, so 'Does nothing if already following' reinforces but adds specific side-effect behavior. The description also discloses that ambiguous names return candidates, which is valuable because no output schema exists. It adds context beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: the core action, idempotence, usage restriction, and ambiguity handling. 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 single-parameter, low-complexity tool, the description covers the key agent needs: what to do, when to do it, and how to handle ambiguity. It does not state the success response format, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 provides 100% description coverage for the target parameter, including formats for authors and publications. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Follow an author or publication.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like unfollow and save_to_list, and clarifies what 'follow' means.

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 explicit guidance: 'Only use when the user explicitly asks' — a clear when-to-use condition. It also explains what to do in the ambiguous-name case. It does not name alternatives, but the restriction to explicit user intent effectively excludes auto-following.

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