get_followers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the response includes nested activities and connections, which is useful, but says nothing about result size, pagination, depth limits, or cost of traversing a graph — all material for a potentially heavy read operation.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. There is mild redundancy between 'relationships/interactions' and 'activities and connections', but it costs little.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and roughly what it returns. It falls short on operational detail — pagination, volume, or what 'connections' actually contains — which an agent would need before calling it on a large account.

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 coverage is 100%, so both account_id and predicate are already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that baseline and never explains what filtering by predicate does to the returned follower set.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get followers of an address') and adds what comes back ('follower accounts with their activities and connections'). It is clearly distinguishable from the inverse sibling get_following by name, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with it.

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 closing phrase 'for social network analysis' implies a use context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as get_following or get_account_info. The agent must infer selection from the tool names alone.

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