find_influential_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions return sorting but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds some behavioral context (sorting options) but falls short of full transparency.

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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word 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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main inputs and output ordering. It omits details like return structure and pagination (implied by maxResults), but is sufficient for understanding tool behavior.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions), so the description must compensate. It explains topic/searchQuery as search criteria, minFollowers for filtering, and sortBy for ordering. However, maxResults is not mentioned. This provides significant meaning beyond bare schema names and types.

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's purpose: finding influential users in a topic or network. It specifies actions (search, filter by follower count) and output (sorted results). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_similar_users or get_followers.

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: when to search by topic/query and filter by followers. It implies the tool is for discovering influential users, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, which are numerous but clearly distinct.

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