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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description goes beyond them by disclosing result ordering, the pagination contract (has_next_page + next_cursor), and a detailed cost model with a per-call minimum. It does not state auth requirements or rate limits beyond credits, but the added behavioral detail is substantial.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: purpose and ordering first, then pagination, then cost. Every sentence earns 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return shape (has_next_page + next_cursor) along with cost and pagination. It omits what fields each follower record contains and any auth prerequisites, but is otherwise complete for a paged list tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains cursor well ('pass next_cursor as cursor for more') and userName is self-evident, but pageSize is never described and its relationship to the per-call minimum is only implied, leaving one of three parameters under-specified.

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 verb and resource ('page through the accounts that follow a user') plus ordering ('newest follower first'), which clearly distinguishes it from user_followings. It does not, however, differentiate from the sibling list_followers, leaving ambiguity about which account-listing tool to choose.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_followers, user_verified_followers, or user_followers_ids. The pagination mechanics imply a paging use case, but the agent gets no routing help between the several follower-listing siblings.

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