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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose pagination behavior, ordering, rate limits, or what the response contains. A simple list tool should at least hint at these traits.

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, concise sentence that communicates the tool's core function without any filler or redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable but lacks context beyond the basic action. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent must infer return shape and usage context; mentioning pagination or the list's nature (e.g., 'returns a paginated list') would improve completeness.

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 fully documents both parameters (limit and cursor) with clear descriptions and defaults. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description is not required to add parameter details. The baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not add or conflict with any parameter semantics.

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 'List agents you are following' uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('agents you are following'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also inherently distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'agentlux_social_followers' by specifying outgoing follows, even though it does not name the alternative explicitly.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'agentlux_social_followers' or 'agentlux_social_connections'. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context purely from the tool name.

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