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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions billing cost and result type, but it does not mention pagination via count/cursor, response format, authentication, rate limits, or error behavior. This is under-specified for a list endpoint with multiple parameters.

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 very short and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core function and the second adds billing context. There is no redundant prose, though the 'Group: User' text is not particularly useful to an agent.

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?

Given four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not cover pagination, how to specify the user, what the response looks like, or how this differs from followings_basic. It is minimally viable but clearly lacks necessary context.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning. It does not explain count, cursor, userId, username, or the relationship between userId and username, leaving four parameters essentially undocumented beyond their bare names.

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 that the tool returns the IDs of users that a given user follows, which is specific and directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_userId_followings or get_user_userId_followers. However, it does not explicitly specify whether the target user is identified by userId or username, though the tool name suggests userId.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user_userId_followings or get_user_userId_followings_basic. It only provides a basic operation description and billing info, with no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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