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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint. The description adds behavior beyond that: results are paged one page at a time and only public profiles are returned, which tells the agent to expect partial results and a filter on the output. Ordering, rate limits and per-page size are not disclosed.

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, no filler, and the primary operation is front-loaded ahead of the secondary paging instruction. Every clause carries usable 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 two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the definition covers what to fetch, the public-only and single-account constraints, and paging behavior. No output schema exists, but since the description only promises 'one page' of profiles, the absence of return-value detail is a minor gap.

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 100% and both parameters are described in the schema, including the cursor's provenance from a previous next_cursor. The description's cursor guidance adds a usage condition but largely restates the schema's 'omit for the first page' rule, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description gives a specific verb and resource ('Get one page of public follower profiles') plus scope qualifiers: one page, public only, a single account. That distinguishes it in practice from an ids variant or a verified-only variant. It stops short of naming any sibling, so an agent must infer the split rather than being told.

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?

It supplies an explicit conditional rule for paging: 'Pass cursor only if the user asks for another page,' and constrains the target to an account the user named. No named alternative or when-not-to-use case is provided, which keeps it below the top band.

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