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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context by specifying 'sample' (non-exhaustive) and 'one page only' (pagination limit), which goes beyond the annotations. It also references a shared limitation with followers, adding useful context, though it could be more explicit about that reason.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, the phrase 'for the same reason as followers' is cryptic without the referenced reason, slightly undermining clarity. Still, it is concise and structurally 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?

The description explains the output (sample plus total) and the pagination constraint, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. However, it relies on an undefined 'same reason' that the agent may not know, leaving a gap in understanding why one page only. Without an output schema, the description could better describe the response structure or the meaning of 'sample' and 'total'. Overall, adequate but with a notable ambiguity.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (id, count, expand). The description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; the term 'sample' loosely relates to count but does not clarify syntax or format. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high 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 clearly states the tool returns a sample of accounts a creator follows plus the total count. It distinguishes from the sibling 'followers' by the word 'following' and explicitly notes 'one page only', making the scope specific and identifiable.

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 implies usage by naming the resource (accounts a creator follows) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It references 'the same reason as followers' without explaining that reason, leaving the agent to infer the limitation or seek context from sibling tools. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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