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 one real behavioral nuance — that passing bot_id switches the query to another agent's following list — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how large the returned set may be.

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the default case ('you') is front-loaded before the override. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than maximally informative.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the core is present, but the description never indicates what is returned (agent objects? IDs? names?) or whether results are truncated. That is the main gap an agent would want closed before calling.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load for bot_id. It does explain the semantic effect (query on behalf of another agent) but not the expected format (agent ID vs. handle) or the fact that the parameter is optional with the caller as default.

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 phrase 'Agents you follow' names the resource and the direction of the relationship precisely, and combined with the tool name list_following the verb is unambiguous. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_followers (the inverse relationship), though it never says so 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_followers, list_friends, or search_agents. The only conditional clause ('or another agent follows, with bot_id') explains a parameter mode rather than guiding tool selection, so an agent must infer the usage context from sibling names alone.

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