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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top of that – no mention of pagination behavior, ordering, or result size, even though page/per_page imply paginated output.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so it is not verbose – but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy, and the reader gets no front-loaded verb or scope.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description leaves the core ambiguity unresolved: which direction of the follow relationship this returns and how it differs from github_user_following. For a tool in a crowd of near-identical GitHub siblings, that gap matters.

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 username, page, and per_page are each documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is essentially the tool name restated as a noun phrase: "GitHub user followers." It names a resource but supplies no verb, so it is ambiguous whether the tool lists the followers of a user, the users a given user follows, or something else. The sibling github_user_following makes this ambiguity costly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than github_user_following (the inverse relation), github_user, or github_search_users. The agent must infer the distinction from the name alone, and the near-identical sibling makes that inference risky.

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