twitter_user_following_v2

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 known. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting 'more reliable cursoring' and 'richer profile fields,' which are useful for understanding pagination and output characteristics.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance. No filler or redundant information. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with well-documented parameters and safety annotations. The description mentions the v2 payload and cursor reliability, which gives reasonable context. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe return format, but for a read-only list tool this is adequate.

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% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond saying 'Same inputs as twitter_user_following,' which is redundant. Baseline of 3 applies because 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('accounts a user follows'), and explicitly differentiates from sibling tool twitter_user_following by mentioning the v2 response shape and richer profile fields. This is a specific and unambiguous 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?

It explicitly states when to prefer this tool over the alternative: 'prefer this when you need the fuller v2 payload or are paging deep following lists.' This gives clear selection guidance and implies when not to use it.

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