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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether results are paginated, ordered, limited in size, or require auth, and it gives no return-format information. For a no-annotation list tool, this is a notable gap.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the usage trigger and the core action. It is efficient, though the under-specification is a content problem, not a conciseness one.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description should carry the full specification burden but does not. It omits parameter meanings, pagination behavior, and the distinction from get_followers.

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 0% for both parameters (agent and limit). The description never explains that 'agent' identifies the subject or that 'limit' caps results. It adds zero meaning beyond the bare schema names when coverage is this low.

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 a read operation on a relationship: which agents a given agent follows. That is specific enough to identify the resource, but it does not clearly distinguish from the sibling get_followers (the inverse direction), leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

'Use when inspecting which agents a registered agent follows' implies usage context but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to get_followers/unfollow_agent. The when-to-use is present but thin.

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