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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations: results contain public actor profiles, and cursor pagination is supported.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation, with zero filler. The return-content and pagination notes are appended efficiently rather than padding.

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?

Output schema and annotations are both present and rich, so the description only needs purpose and pagination context, which it supplies. It stops slightly short of telling the agent how this differs from bluesky_follows when both are available.

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 the schema already documents actor, limit, and cursor. The description restates the actor input forms (handle or DID) and confirms pagination but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — 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 ('List followers for a Bluesky account') and names the accepted identifier forms. It is distinguishable from the sibling bluesky_follows, which covers the opposite direction of the relationship graph.

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 trailing phrase 'use this to inspect who follows one account' implies the use case, but it never explicitly contrasts with bluesky_follows or says when this is the wrong tool. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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