x_api_get_users_followers

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden and does well: it explicitly states 'Risk: read-only,' lists required OAuth scopes, describes environment-selection behavior, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. This goes well beyond basic disclosure, though it could still be clearer about pagination behavior and the exact content of the response payload.

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 long but well-organized into labeled sections (risk, permissions, environment behavior, parameters, response, failures, tools, safety, example). There is mild redundancy, such as 'Use when: Get followers' repeating the first sentence, but the structure makes scanning easy and each section adds meaningful content. It earns a 4 despite minor repetition.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides a solid amount of context: expected response envelope, failure modes, auth prerequisites, and safety warnings. However, it does not describe what the follower data actually contains, specific pagination behavior, or complete parameter semantics for all 9 parameters. This leaves notable gaps for a 9-parameter API tool.

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 explaining the id, max_results, and pagination_token parameter formats, and by describing the scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId and credentialKey behavior. However, parameters like authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not explained, and id is not identified as the user ID, leaving several parameters under-specified.

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 states 'Get followers,' which is a clear action and resource, but it does not specify that this retrieves followers of a specific user. Given sibling tools like x_api_get_lists_followers and x_api_get_users_following, the description lacks enough detail to differentiate the exact scope. It is not a tautology, but it is too minimal for a tool with many similar siblings.

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 'Use when: Get followers' line is circular and offers no actionable guidance. 'Do not use when' only mentions generic exploration/auth scenarios and suggests x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion, but does not discuss when to prefer this tool over alternative follower/following tools. No concrete exclusions are provided beyond broad exploratory cases.

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