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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already present, the description adds meaningful behavior: ordering is most recent first, returned fields include username, display name and avatar, counts are deliberately excluded, and the call costs 1 credit. It does not describe pagination behavior despite having a cursor parameter.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the resource first, then ordering and returned fields, then the counts exclusion and cost. Every sentence carries 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 list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the important return-value context: fields and ordering. It also explains the absence of counts and points to the profile tool. The main gap is that it does not explain pagination or the limit parameter.

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 only 50%, and the description does not explain the limit, cursor, or cache_max_age parameters. It adds ordering context but leaves the pagination and cache controls entirely to the schema, which documents only handle and cursor.

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 clearly identifies the resource: a user's followers, returned most recent first. It also distinguishes the result from profile counts by saying counts are not included and must be fetched from a profile. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list', but the meaning is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear usage boundary: use this for the follower list, and fetch a profile for counts. The sibling mixcloud_following is not named, but the followers/following distinction is self-evident from the resource name.

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