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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral disclosure not present in any structured field: the call counts against a browsing quota, which matters given sibling tools like get_account_limits and get_account_health. It does not define what 'browsing' costs, which caps the score below 5.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably over-compressed, since the quota warning 'Counts as browsing' is left unexplained.

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?

Four parameters with one required, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile. The description covers identity scoping and quota impact, but says nothing about page size behavior or what a returned entry looks like, leaving the pagination model entirely to the schema.

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 75%, with limit, cursor and user_id all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'another person with user_id' merely restates the schema's 'Omit for the account itself' and adds nothing about pagination or the 25-item page cap.

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: the accounts a given account follows, with an explicit branch for another user via user_id. It is clearly distinct in kind from siblings like list_followers or list_follow_requests, though it never names a sibling to reinforce the contrast.

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?

'Counts as browsing' hints at a quota cost but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over list_followers or list_follow_requests, and no exclusions. The only routing hint (omit user_id for the account itself) lives in the schema, not the description.

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