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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the ~20-per-page result size, which tells the agent to expect pagination and multiple calls. It does not mention rate limits or ordering of results, keeping it below a 5.

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 zero filler, and the core purpose plus page-size expectation are front-loaded before the parameter requirement. Nothing could be removed without losing 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-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus annotations give enough to call it correctly, including the page-size hint that motivates cursor use. A brief note on what each follower record contains would close the remaining 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 description coverage is 100%, so both user_id and cursor are already documented in the schema, including the cursor's next_cursor semantics. The description only restates that user_id must be numeric, adding no meaning beyond the structured field. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get verified followers for a user'), with the 'verified' qualifier that cleanly separates it from the plain get_user_followers sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling, so an agent must infer the contrast from the adjective alone.

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: the description tells the agent this returns verified followers and that a numeric user_id is required, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-prefer get_user_followers or get_user_followers_ids. The reader can infer the filter condition, but there is no routing guidance or exclusion.

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