get_following

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does state what comes back: followed accounts plus their activities and connections. It says nothing about result volume, pagination, ordering, or whether the traversal is bounded, which matters for a graph-expansion call that can return large payloads.

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 with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first, restating the return content in slightly different terms, but it is not wasteful enough to hurt.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does the minimum needed to explain the result shape and its analysis purpose. It leaves out practical call details such as result size behavior and whether connections are expanded recursively, which an agent would want before invoking a graph query.

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 account_id and predicate are already documented with examples, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and notably never mentions the predicate filter, which is the only parameter whose effect is non-obvious.

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 accounts that a given address is following,' which reads as the mirror of the sibling get_followers. It adds scope detail ('their relationships') but never explicitly names get_followers or any sibling as the contrasting choice, so differentiation is implied by wording rather than stated.

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 through the phrase 'for social graph analysis,' which gives a loose context but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions. It never tells the agent to prefer get_followers for the inverse direction or another sibling for plain account lookups.

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