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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond them: only public accounts are returned, and each call yields a single paginated page. It stops short of stating page size, ordering, or whether a next_cursor is returned, which leaves the pagination contract partly implicit.

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 no filler; the resource and scope come first and the pagination rule follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it establishes the result population (public accounts followed) and the one-page-at-a-time behavior. The only shortfall is that the return shape and continuation cursor are not mentioned, though the schema's cursor description partially compensates.

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 parameters are already documented, including the cursor's provenance and the 'omit or empty for first page' rule. The description adds a modest amount of operational meaning by tying cursor use to a user request for another page, but no format or edge-case detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most of the load.

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 accounts a single user follows', including the scope qualifier 'public' and the pagination limit 'one page'. It does not name a sibling such as get_user_followers to contrast with, but the resource (accounts followed) is unambiguous enough that an agent can distinguish it from a followers-listing tool.

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?

The second sentence, 'Pass cursor only if the user asks for another page', gives conditional guidance, but it is about how to use a parameter rather than when to choose this tool over the obvious alternatives. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing for cases like retrieving follower IDs or a user's followers instead of followings.

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