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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details about caching (cache=true for free 24h hit, default fresh) and billing behavior (empty results and failures not charged). However, it does not disclose output shape, pagination behavior beyond schema, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, though that is mildly implied.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the core purpose. There is some minor redundancy in the pricing statements ('same card and ~0.1/row pricing' followed by 'Costs ~3 credits (0.1/result)'), but the overall length is appropriate and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 list tool with a complete schema, the description is mostly adequate but leaves gaps: it does not mention what the response contains beyond 'accounts', lacks an alternative differentiation, and with no output schema, an agent might benefit from a note about pagination or result structure. The cost and cache details are helpful but not sufficient for full context.

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 the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only reinforces the cache behavior already described in the schema.

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 states the resource clearly: 'Accounts a user follows,' which unambiguously identifies the following list. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', and while it mentions followers for pricing, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the github_followers sibling tool.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only reference to followers is about pricing, not about choosing between github_followers and github_following. An agent is left to infer the use case from the tool name and description.

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