x_api_get_users_following

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does exceptionally well: it explicitly states read-only risk, required OAuth scopes and token types, environment-selection behavior (scopeTenantId plus scopeUserId/scopeAccountId), expected response wrapper shape, common failure conditions, and a safety warning about sensitive data. This goes far beyond a minimal description and gives the agent a clear operational picture.

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-structured with labeled sections (Risk, Required permissions, etc.), but it is verbose and contains redundancy: 'Use when: Get following' repeats the tool's vague purpose, and the 'Parameter formats and constraints' section partly duplicates schema type information. There is room to tighten without losing information.

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?

The description provides much operational context (auth, environment, failures, safety) but fails to explain the most important domain outcome: what data the response actually contains. The expected response shape is only a generic wrapper and does not state that it returns a list of user objects or how following direction is interpreted. Given no output schema, this is a significant gap. The tool's core semantic is left ambiguous, making the description incomplete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 adds path/query context for id, max_results, and pagination_token, and explains the role of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. However, it does not explain what max_results logically controls or what pagination_token does, and it omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType entirely. The added context is helpful but incomplete.

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 following,' which is a near-restatement of the tool name and does not specify whether it returns the accounts a user follows or the followers of a user. It lacks a clear statement of the resource and action, unlike siblings like x_api_get_users_followers which are more explicit. The 'Use when: Get following' adds no clarity and is essentially tautological.

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 'Do not use when' clause provides guidance to prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration and notes when auth/configuration tools are needed. It also lists recommended prerequisite/follow-up tools. However, it does not differentiate when to use this tool versus sibling tools like x_api_get_users_followers, and the 'Use when' clause is just a repeat of the vague purpose.

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