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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits like pagination, authentication, or side effects. It does none of this; it only states cost. The pagination hint ('hasMore is True load next page') exists in the schema but not in the description, so the description fails to add transparency.

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 extremely brief but includes extraneous meta-info like 'Group: User Related API' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' that do not aid tool selection. It is concise but not efficiently structured; some lines are wasted.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining expected behavior and return values. It only states the tool's purpose and cost, leaving out any context about pagination, result shape, or limitations. This is inadequate for a tool with this level of structured metadata.

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 high (67%), with descriptions for 'time' and 'count' already explaining pagination and max count. The description itself doesn't mention any parameters, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Given the high coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'get user following list' which is a specific verb+resource and clearly differentiates from siblings like get_userPublishVideo or get_userFavoriteVideo by naming the resource. However, it adds no extra nuance beyond the tool name itself, so it doesn't reach the full 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the API group and cost. There is no context about scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.

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