twitter_user_followers_v2

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds value by noting behavioral differences from v1: 'richer profile fields' and 'more reliable cursoring for large audiences', which directly informs expected behavior beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause earns its place. It efficiently conveys purpose, key differentiators, and usage guidance without redundancy.

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 list tool with 4 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description effectively explains why this variant exists and when to choose it. It could possibly elaborate on the return structure, but the 'fuller v2 payload' hint and cursoring mention provide adequate context for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details (all four params are already well-documented in the schema), and 'Same inputs as twitter_user_followers' is redundant given the schema. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource ('List a user's followers') and immediately distinguishes itself with 'v2 response shape', 'richer profile fields', and 'more reliable cursoring', differentiating from the sibling twitter_user_followers. It names the alternative explicitly and states the key benefit.

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?

It provides clear guidance to 'prefer this when you need the fuller v2 payload or are paging deep follower lists', which directly addresses when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when a lightweight v1 response suffices), though the alternative is implied by referencing twitter_user_followers.

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