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

Annotations are None, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only mentions billing and payment details (cost per call, no API key), but does not disclose what the tool returns, whether data is read-only, or any side effects. The term 'Billing per call' gives some operational context but not enough behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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 (one sentence), and the most critical operational info (cost) is front-loaded. However, it lacks a clear action statementried. Style is concise and no extraneous text, so it earns a 4.

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 relatively simple (3 parameters, no output schema), but the sibling list includes get_v2_Followers, which could cause confusion. The description does not address the distinction or provide any usage context beyond billing. For a simple tool, it is minimally complete but misses the opportunity to disambiguate from siblings.

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%, meaning all three parameters (id, count, cursor) have descriptions in the schema itself. The description does not add extra meaning beyond that, but it's acceptable because the schema covers it. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema provides sufficient detail.

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 identifies the business area ('Group: User') and the tool name 'User Verified Followers' implies it retrieves verified followers for a user. However, the description does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'Fetch verified followers'), relying on the tool name for clarity. It also does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_v2_Followers', making the distinction less explicit.

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 tool versus alternatives like get_v2_Followers. The description only mentions billing and payment method, not usage context or conditions. The input schema does provide a clue (finding ID via another endpoint) but does not exclude when to use other tools.

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