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, and the description usefully adds that only PUBLIC accounts are returned. However, it mentions pagination 'with a cursor or page' even though the schema exposes only page/per_page and no cursor, which introduces a small ambiguity about how to page rather than resolving behavior.

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 tightly written sentences, with the purpose front-loaded before the sibling routing cue. The only wart is the stray 'cursor' mention, which doesn't correspond to any schema field and slightly muddies an otherwise clean statement.

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?

With a readOnly annotation and an output schema already covering the return shape, the description only needs to convey the resource, direction, and paging — and it does, for a simple list endpoint. The unexplained 'cursor' phrasing is the one loose end, but the definition is otherwise complete for the agent's needs.

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 page and per_page are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the word 'paginated'. The 'cursor' reference is not backed by any parameter, so it adds marginal value at best.

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 (List) and resource (public accounts followed by a GitHub user), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling github_user_followers by clarifying the direction of the relationship. An agent can route between the two follow tools without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool (github_user_followers) and the condition that selects it ('accounts following that user'), leaving the 'following' vs 'followers' distinction unambiguous. Nothing about when to pick this tool is left to inference.

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