Get following

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds context by explaining the mechanics ('opens their Following list and reads what loads') and confirms the partial nature, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states what it does, second sets expectations about completeness. No unnecessary words.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are documented), annotations are rich, and the description explains the partial nature and mechanism, the description is complete for this tool's complexity. It also covers the limitation of the platform.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'sample' but that is already in the tool description. The schema itself provides clear descriptions for 'handle' and 'limit'.

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 tool gets a sample of accounts a user follows, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource ('accounts a user follows'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_followers' by focusing on who the user follows, not followers. The phrase 'partial list' further differentiates it from a full dump.

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 clear usage context: it returns a sample, not a full list, and explains why ('Threads does not expose a full dump'). This guides the agent to set appropriate expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools.

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