x_following_list

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that the output is a compact, sanitized page and warns that profile text is third-party content that must be treated as data, not instructions. This is valuable prompt-injection context and adds real behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then input forms, then a return/safety note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to orient the agent on purpose, input forms, and output expectations. It covers all of these, including the sanitized/third-party caveat, so an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the user format list already present in the schema and adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the 'compact page' contrast with raw output.

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 precise verb+resource: 'List the accounts an X (Twitter) user follows.' This naturally distinguishes it from sibling x_followers_list by the direction of the relationship. The accepted user formats additionally clarify the exact input scope.

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?

Clearly frames the tool as the read path for a user's following list and spells out accepted user forms (numeric id, handle, @handle, profile URL, or 'me'). It does not explicitly name an alternative like x_followers_list, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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