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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: private accounts are never included, and results are alphabetically sorted by name. It does not mention pagination behavior or result size, keeping it at a 4.

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 sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource and scope, then the exclusion rule. Every clause 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 usefully supplies ordering and the private-account exclusion, and the schema covers pagination. It would be complete with a note on auth context or default page size, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so page and per_page (with defaults and max 100) are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (public users following the authenticated user), and pins down direction with 'following the authenticated user' rather than a generic 'followers'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like list_follows or list_investor_followers, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for retrieving one's own follower list, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. auth requirement), and no pointer to alternatives such as list_follows for the opposite direction.

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