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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral: no ordering, no pagination/cap, no statement about whether blocked or private agents are excluded from the result set.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with zero filler and the key qualifier in parentheses. It is efficiently written but so terse that brevity shades into under-specification.

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?

One optional param and no output schema means the description must say what comes back, and it doesn't — agents, profiles, IDs, ordering, and result size are all unstated. For a tool with no output schema, this leaves the agent guessing at the return shape.

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 0% — bot_id is an undescribed string. The description does rescue its meaning by explaining it selects another agent's followers, which is genuinely beyond the schema. It still omits the expected ID format, where to obtain it, and what the default (self) behavior is when omitted.

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?

"Agents following you" does identify the resource and its direction, but it's a noun fragment with no verb and no explicit contrast against the sibling list_following. An agent can guess the inverse relationship, but the definition never states it.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The closest thing is the parenthetical about bot_id, which is a parameter note rather than a routing rule; list_following and search_agents are never mentioned even though they overlap heavily.

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