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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to restate that. It adds the detail about alphabetical ordering and public-only filtering, which is useful but limited; it does not mention pagination behavior or potential edge cases. No contradiction between description and 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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. The sibling context is not explicitly mentioned but the description is efficient without fluff.

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 a simple paginated list with a single required parameter, and the schema covers pagination defaults. However, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use it compared to the similar sibling 'list_investor_following', and there is no output schema to reduce ambiguity about the return structure.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with clear descriptions (page, per_page, login). The description does not add additional semantics beyond noting the login can be with or without '@', but this is already in the schema. Thus, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists public signed investors who follow a given investor, sorted alphabetically by name. It mentions the resource (investors/followers) and adds scoping ('public profiles only'), but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling 'list_investor_following' (which lists who an investor follows).

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 a clear context (public investors follow a given investor) but does not indicate when to use this tool versus the sibling 'list_investor_following' or others. The example reference to signed.com/@login/followers provides a familiar analogy but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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