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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered alphabetically by name, and private accounts are never returned, which tells the agent what data will be missing from the result set. It doesn't cover pagination behavior or result volume.

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; the resource and scope are front-loaded, and the exclusion rule follows immediately. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 filtered-list tool with full annotation coverage, a complete parameter schema, and no output schema to explain, the description covers resource, ordering, and inclusion criteria. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination exhaustion behavior or whether the list can be empty.

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 both page and per_page are fully documented in the schema with defaults and max values. The description adds nothing about these parameters, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 names a specific resource (the public accounts the authenticated user follows) and clarifies the direction of the relationship, which is the key distinction from list_followers / list_investor_following. It also states scope and ordering ('alphabetically by name'). It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not fully differentiated from siblings.

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 phrase 'the authenticated user follows' implicitly disambiguates this from list_followers and list_investor_following by establishing the relationship direction, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the sibling list tools, and no guidance on paginating through large follow lists.

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