x_api_get_users_followed_lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states read-only risk, required OAuth scopes, environment-selection behavior for tenant/principal resolution, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. This is comprehensive and goes well beyond the structured fields.

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 lengthy but well-structured with clear labels (Use when, Risk, Required permissions, etc.). Every section adds value—covering prerequisites, environment behavior, failure modes, and an example—making the length justified and easily scannable.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description thoroughly covers auth prerequisites, environment selection, parameter constraints, failure conditions, and even provides a concrete JSON example. It also mentions recommended companion tools, making it highly complete for an AI agent to invoke 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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds meaningful semantics by identifying id as a path parameter, max_results as an integer query parameter, and pagination_token as a query parameter. It also explains how scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey control auth resolution, which is not evident from the raw schema. The remaining parameters (authorizationKey, preferredAuthType) are not addressed, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 followed Lists,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like x_api_get_users_owned_lists or x_api_get_lists_followers, so it misses the top tier for 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?

The description provides a 'Do not use when' clause that advises using x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion during exploration and avoiding this tool when auth/configuration tools are needed. It does not, however, explain when to choose this tool over alternative list-related tools, leaving usage context only partially specified.

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