x_followers_list

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds that results are a compact, sanitized page and warns that profile text is third-party content to be treated as data, not instructions. This is useful security context beyond the annotations, though pagination and raw-mode behavior are left to the schema.

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 dense sentences front-load the purpose and accepted user formats, then deliver the essential sanitization and prompt-injection caveat. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool title.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented four-parameter schema and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, acceptable inputs, and the security caution. The remaining details, such as pagination cursors and raw mode, are already covered by the schema.

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 fully documents user, raw, page_token, and max_results. The description reinforces valid forms of the user parameter but adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'List the accounts following an X (Twitter) user,' and it enumerates accepted identifier forms. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling x_following_list, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no pointer to x_following_list for the inverse relationship or to x_user_get for single-profile reads, so the agent must infer applicability from the name and scope.

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