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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: page size (30), a data-quality caveat (reduced user payload so per-account counts are null), and a credit cost. This tells the agent how much data to expect and what it costs. Return shape and pagination mechanics beyond page size are not elaborated.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, followed by page size, data caveat, cost, and invocation hint in two tight sentences. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers pagination size, cost, and the null-counts caveat, which is what an agent needs to set expectations. Ideally it would name the followers sibling to prevent confusion, but it is otherwise sufficient.

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%, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: handle and url are mutually exclusive alternatives, which the schema does not state. The undocumented cache_max_age is not addressed. Credit for clarifying the either/or choice.

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 resource ('Accounts this user follows') with implicit listing verb, and 'Following' vs the sibling 'github_followers' is distinguishable by name. It doesn't explicitly call out the followers sibling as the alternative, keeping it at 4.

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?

'Pass either handle or url' clarifies how to invoke, but no guidance on when to choose this over github_followers or github_user, and no prerequisites stated. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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