twitter_user_following

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it mentions pagination ('Paginate with cursor') and that it returns profile data for each account. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and output, then adds the pagination note and use cases efficiently. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the return value type ('profile data') and pagination behavior. It also mentions use cases. For a listing tool with good annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), this is sufficiently complete to guide 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema itself documents all parameters adequately. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only reiterating pagination behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('List the accounts that a given user follows') and specifies the output ('Returns profile data for each account followed'). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'twitter_user_followers' by focusing on the accounts being followed, not the followers. The use cases mentioned further clarify its purpose.

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 explicit usage contexts ('mapping a user's information sources, influencer networks, or competitor monitoring lists'), indicating when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools, though the sibling list implies differentiation.

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