get_following

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior, default and max count (24), and index increments (0, 24, 48), which adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple retrieval statement.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then return details and pagination. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 the moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains return content and pagination. It could mention error cases or requirement that the user exists, but overall it gives sufficient context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Despite the schema having parameter descriptions (context says 0% coverage, but they exist), the description adds important semantics about how index and count work together for pagination, with an example. This compensates for any ambiguity in the schema and provides clear usage guidance.

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 retrieves the list of accounts a Tableau Public user is following, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'following', which is opposite of get_followers and distinct from get_favorites/workbooks.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Useful for understanding user interests and discovering related content creators.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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