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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that TikTok may restrict or truncate results, warns against inferring complete counts from a single page, explains the hasMore/cursor contract, and rules out mutation. It omits auth or rate-limit context, keeping it just short of exhaustive.

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?

Four tight sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, return shape, truncation caveat, pagination rule, and non-mutation disclaimer. The scoping verb+resource leads, and nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the return fields (userList, minCursor/maxCursor, hasMore, isTruncated) and the pagination semantics. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call and page through it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents count, sec_uid, user_id, and both cursors with formats and defaults. The description adds only the behavioral rule about when to advance cursors, which is usage rather than parameter meaning. 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 and resource with scope: 'Get one native page of public accounts followed by the specified creator.' The phrase 'followed by' distinguishes it from the sibling creator_followers (who follows the creator), so an agent can disambiguate the direction of the relationship without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: forward cursors only while hasMore is true, and stop when it is false. The closing line 'Does not follow or unfollow anyone' heads off a wrong-intent invocation. It never names a sibling alternative for the inverse direction (creator_followers), so it falls short of explicit when-not/alternatives guidance.

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