twitter_user_followers_v2

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 payload-shape and cursor-reliability context, but the reconnection/pagination mechanics are already detailed in the cursor schema field, so the marginal behavioral disclosure is modest.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The comparative detail and the selection rule follow immediately after the core verb+resource statement.

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 read-only 4-parameter list tool with rich schema coverage and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient; it even hints at the payload ('richer profile fields'). The absence of any output schema means a brief note on the response envelope would have closed the remaining 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%, with count, cursor, user_id and username each fully documented including the advisory count cap and the exactly-one-of constraint. The description contributes only 'same inputs as twitter_user_followers,' adding no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (a user's followers) and explicitly frames itself as the v2 variant with 'richer profile fields and more reliable cursoring for large audiences.' This directly distinguishes it from the sibling twitter_user_followers, which it names.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule ('prefer this when you need the fuller v2 payload or are paging deep follower lists') and names the alternative tool with the note that inputs are identical. An agent can choose between the two follower tools without opening either schema.

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