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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: discloses pagination semantics, the 'public accounts only' visibility constraint, the exact per-item return fields, and full billing behavior (bad input free, not-found uncharged, $0.02 per successful call via x402 in _meta["x402/payment"]). That payment requirement is critical for correct invocation and is not in any structured field.

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 tight sentences: scope first, return shape second, cost/payment mechanics last. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess, with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still enumerates the per-account fields and the shared social schema, and it covers pagination and payment. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described in-schema, including accepted handle formats and that cursor is the previous page's next_cursor. The description only restates that same information, 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?

States a specific resource and direction: 'the public accounts one TikTok account follows, by handle.' That direction phrase is what separates it from the inverse tiktok_followers tool, though the sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the pairing.

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?

Usage is only implied by the stated purpose; there is no explicit when-to-use versus tiktok_followers, tiktok_search, or social_accounts, and no exclusions. The 'one page per call with next_cursor' note and payment terms help execution but not tool selection.

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