List who I follow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the required OAuth scope (user_accounts:read), which tells the agent what auth the call needs. It stops short of noting pagination behavior or rate limits, hence not a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action and resource come first, followed by the scope requirement. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 paginated list with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and limitations adequately. It could add a note on result shape or the meaning of a returned bookmark, but nothing critical to a correct invocation is missing.

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 bookmark, feed_type, and page_size are each fully documented in the schema, including the enum values and 1-250 range. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 (users and boards the authenticated user follows), clearly identifying the outbound-follow relationship. It does not explicitly name pinterest_list_followers as the inverse operation, so an agent must infer the direction distinction from the wording alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the description's directionality ('who the authenticated user follows'), which is enough to distinguish it from list_followers. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement or guidance on choosing among the many list_* siblings (list_boards, search_my_boards, etc.).

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