fomo_get_recommended_users

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool relates to recommended users but does not state whether it returns a list, whether it mutates state, what ordering or criteria are used, or any other behavioral details.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded phrase with no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with one parameter, so a short description is acceptable for basic invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent would benefit from explicit mention of the return shape and from guidance distinguishing this from sibling user-related tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does clarify that the single 'id' parameter refers to an account. It adds some meaning beyond the raw schema, but it does not explain the id format, required account existence, or how the id relates to a user vs. an account.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('recommended users') and the scope ('for an account'), so an agent can tell that the tool provides account-specific user recommendations. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'return' or 'get' and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as search_users or get_following_ids.

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 phrase implies the tool should be used when recommendations for a given account are needed, which is a recognizable context. It provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools to prefer, leaving the selection partly to inference.

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