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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions billing ('1 Credits per call') and group 'follows', but does not disclose side effects (likely read-only), authentication requirements, rate limiting, pagination behavior, or response format. The description is silent on all key behavioral aspects.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not provide enough information to be useful. The single sentence adds no meaningful detail beyond the title, so it fails to earn its place.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the API returns, how pagination works, or how this differs from the non-V2 sibling. A minimally complete description would at least mention pagination (cursor) and the meaning of userId.

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?

With 4 parameters (cursor, userId, proxyUrl, resFormat) and 0% schema description coverage, the description offers no explanation of these parameters beyond their names. For instance, it does not clarify that 'userId' is the target user or how 'cursor' behaves for pagination. The description adds no value over the schema.

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 tautology: 'get followingsList by V2' simply restates the tool name and title with no additional information about what the tool does, what a followings list is, or what data it returns. It fails to distinguish from siblings like get_base_apitools_followingsList and get_base_apitools_followingsIds.

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. The description does not mention typical use cases (e.g., retrieving a user's following list) or when to prefer this V2 endpoint over the non-V2 siblings.

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