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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: concrete credit burn (maxCredits ≥2 for a first list page, 1 for a next page), the authorization requirement per target/type/budget, and idempotency-key lifecycle guidance (generate before first attempt, reuse with identical arguments when restoring). This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true and explains why the operation is not free.

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 core action and scope, then progressively adds cost, authorization and retry rules. Every sentence carries operational weight, though the dense run-on phrasing around credit thresholds takes a second read.

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 credit-consuming, idempotent, paginated read tool with an output schema already present, the description covers cost, auth, pagination discipline and retry safety. Minor gaps remain on failure/restore semantics and cursor origin, but nothing essential to a correct first call is missing.

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 20%, so the description has to compensate, and it does for maxCredits (per-page cost semantics) and idempotencyKey (lifecycle and reuse rule), plus cursor via 'next page'. It leaves 'type' enum values and cursor format unelaborated, but the critical cost/retry parameters are covered.

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 verb+resource (online query of a public profile or followers/following) and pins the scope to a single source page of ~25 people. The 'ONE page' framing implicitly distinguishes this from bulk siblings like list_followers/list_following without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear usage conditions: explicit target/type/maxCredits authorization, credit cost thresholds per page, and explicit negatives ('never automatically fetch all pages or increase budget'). It stops short of naming alternative siblings (e.g. get_account) for cached or non-credit reads.

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