twitter_user_followers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the returned profile fields and flagging cursor-based pagination for large audiences — important since there is no output schema to document the shape.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then returns, then pagination, then use case. Every sentence contributes; there is no filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and explains pagination, and the schema covers parameter requirements. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only the lack of sibling differentiation as a gap.

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 count, cursor, user_id, and username in depth, including the count caveat and the exactly-one-of constraint. The description only echoes cursor pagination, adding nothing new. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the accounts that follow a given user.' An agent immediately knows this fetches followers. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as twitter_user_followers_v2 or twitter_user_verified_followers, leaving the agent to guess which variant applies.

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?

'Useful for audience analysis, finding who follows a brand or influencer' gives implied motivation for reaching for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing away from the v2/verified-followers siblings. Usage is suggested, not prescribed.

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