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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The one genuine contribution is the ordering guarantee ('oldest first'), which is not expressible in the schema and affects how an agent paginates or picks the first page.

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?

It is a single short clause with zero background noise, which is good, but it is a dependent fragment lacking a subject or verb rather than a front-loaded statement of action. Brevity here shades into under-specification rather than economy.

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 tool is a simple read with full schema coverage and rich annotations, so little description is strictly needed; ordering is supplied. Still missing is any hint of what a follower record contains (user id vs full object) and the relationship to get_follower, which would complete the picture.

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%: limit, cursor and copier_id each carry their own description, including page-size bounds and cursor semantics. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, so the baseline 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 is a noun fragment, 'The copier's followers', with no verb, so the listing action is only inferable from the tool name. It does identify the resource and the scoping (a single copier), which distinguishes it implicitly from get_follower and add_follower, but it never states the operation explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_follower (single follower, needs follower id) or the account-level list_accounts. No prerequisites or exclusions are given; the agent must infer that this is the paginated enumeration path.

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