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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: results are ordered newest first and each call costs 1 credit. It stops short of explaining pagination limits or result caps, which the cursor param hints at but never states.

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?

Two short clauses with zero filler, and the ordering fact is front-loaded where an agent will see it. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never mentions pagination behavior, approximate page size, or what fields a follower record contains. With no output schema, a sentence on the returned shape would have closed the remaining gap.

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%, and the schema already explains both handle (with or without @) and cursor (from previous page's data.cursor). The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: a profile's followers, which cleanly separates it from the sibling tiktok_following. It lacks an explicit verb (list/retrieve), but the noun phrase plus ordering note leaves no ambiguity about what is returned.

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 versus tiktok_following, tiktok_profile, or tiktok_search_users, and no stated prerequisites such as whether the handle must be public or valid. The only usage signal is the implicit 'give me a handle, get followers'.

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