get_profile_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: that results are limited to visible public connections and are not a complete contact export, which shapes how an agent should interpret and trust the output. It stops short of covering pagination or rate limits.

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 tight sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the scope caveat immediately after. Nothing is redundant. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for the parameter and usage detail this tool needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a four-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no named alternatives, the description omits everything an agent needs to set account, profile, relationship, and limit correctly. Adequate only at the level of stating what the call does.

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 0% across four parameters (account, profile, limit, relationship), and the description never mentions any of them. 'Followers/following' loosely hints at the relationship parameter's values, but nothing explains account vs profile, the limit default of 20, or how relationship selects direction. The description does not compensate for the total documentation gap.

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 and resource: read visible public followers/following for a profile. The scope qualifier ('public', 'visible') makes the data boundary clear. It does not name or contrast with near siblings like get_profile_context, get_profile_posts, or search_profile, so an agent still has to infer which profile-reading tool applies.

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 negative framing ('not a private address book or complete contact export') usefully bounds expectations and implies this is for public connection listing only. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no condition for choosing this over the other profile-oriented siblings, leaving usage implied rather than specified.

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