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

No annotations are provided, and the description only conveys the basic action. It does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether results are paginated (though schema hints at this), or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and object without any unnecessary words. It earns high marks for conciseness and clear structure.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with pagination parameters, but no output schema is provided and no details about response format, sorting, or privacy implications are mentioned. It is adequate for a basic read but leaves some gaps, especially given the lack of annotations.

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 provides complete documentation for both parameters (limit and cursor) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'agents that follow you', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like agentlux_social_following (which lists agents you follow) and agentlux_social_connections (bilateral connections).

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 such as agentlux_social_following or agentlux_social_connections. The description only states what it does, with no mention of appropriate contexts or exclusions.

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