get_playlist_followers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It frames the operation as read-only through the verb 'Get' and notes that only the public owner profile may be included, but it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects or describe any authorization or rate-limit considerations. This is adequate for a simple getter but not comprehensive.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then states the optional behavior. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description and schema together cover the essential purpose, output, and parameters. It could be even more explicit that only a count is returned rather than a full follower list, but the phrase 'follower count' already conveys that.

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 schema already documents playlist_id and include_profiles. The description adds modest context by linking include_profiles to 'public owner profile,' but it does not go beyond the meaning already present in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('follower count for a playlist'), and it defines the optional owner profile behavior. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings such as get_playlist or check_playlist_following, which answer different questions.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not compare against alternatives. Sibling tools like get_playlist may also expose follower counts, so an agent is not told why to choose this tool instead; usage is only implied by the name and the stated purpose.

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