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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful traits beyond that — result ordering (newest first) and that the result set is paginated — but says nothing about rate limits, result caps, or stability of the ordering.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core operation and ordering front-loaded before the pagination note. Every clause carries information.

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 paginated read tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what is needed to invoke it. It would be complete with a brief note on return shape or sibling routing, but nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so count, cursor, format, userId/username and max_chars are all fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 ('accounts that follow a user') and adds ordering ('newest followers first'), so it is clearly distinct from get_following by direction. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_verified_followers, which an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('followers of a user'), and 'Paginated' hints that cursor iteration is expected. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the close alternatives (get_following, get_verified_followers) or when a caller should prefer one over another.

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