x_api_get_lists_followers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Risk: read-only', lists required permissions and prerequisites, describes environment-selection behavior, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. This is thorough and goes well beyond basic expectations.

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 well-organized with labeled sections and front-loaded with the purpose. It packs a lot of useful information. Minor redundancy exists ('Get List followers' appears in both the opening and 'Use when'), causing slight waste, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description compensates with an expected response shape. It also covers auth prerequisites, environment-selection behavior, failure conditions, recommended companion tools, and an example. This makes the tool contextually complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by listing parameter formats for id, max_results, and pagination_token, and explaining scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId/credentialKey behavior. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not described in the prose, and no details are given for max_results bounds or pagination_token usage, leaving gaps.

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 'Get List followers', which is a clear verb+resource statement. It identifies the tool's function as retrieving followers of a list, distinguishing it from sibling tools like x_api_get_lists_members or x_api_get_lists_posts. However, it lacks an explicit scope statement (e.g., 'returns the users who follow a given list'), so it is not fully specific on its own.

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 description provides 'Use when: Get List followers' and 'Do not use when... prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first', which gives clear guidance for exploration and auth-config cases. However, it does not offer comparative guidance against related list tools (e.g., when to use x_api_get_lists_members instead), so usage context is only partially explicit.

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