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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses cost per result, approximate total cost, the 24h cache behavior, and that empty results and failures are never charged. It does not address auth or rate limits, but the cost and failure semantics are unusually explicit and valuable.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: result shape, pricing and pagination warning, and cache/failure billing. The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the agent the essential return fields, cost expectations, pagination caution, and cache behavior. It could be slightly more explicit that the response is a list for the specified username, but combined with the schema it leaves few gaps.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful pricing context for cache, limit, and paging, but it does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource as follower cards and lists the returned fields, making it clear this tool returns followers for a GitHub user. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from github_following, but the resource and output shape are clear.

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 implies usage context: pass a username, control cost with limit, and use cache=true for free repeated calls. It warns that large accounts are expensive to page fully, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives like github_following or github_user, nor does it state exclusions.

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