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 fully covered. The description contributes the fixed page size of 20 and the cursor-based pagination model, which is genuine extra context about return volume. It does not disclose ordering, whether follower objects are hydrated, or how large lists behave at depth.

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 with the resource scope front-loaded and pagination behavior second. No filler, no restated name, nothing redundant.

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 two-parameter read-only list query with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool returns at a coarse level (followers, 20 at a time) and how to page. Minor gaps remain on result ordering and what a follower record contains, but with no output schema and clear annotations it is close to sufficient.

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 both list_id and cursor are already documented in the schema, including the omit-or-empty-string first-page convention. The description's cursor sentence restates that rather than adding meaning; only the page-size detail is new and it is not a parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Get followers of an X list" names a specific verb (get) and a scoped resource (followers of a list), which distinguishes it from user-oriented siblings like get_user_followers and from get_list_members. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the resource qualifier is unambiguous.

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 only implied by the resource scope: an agent can infer this is for list followers rather than user followers. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_list_members or get_user_followers, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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