get_user_followers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, ordering, or behavior for invalid usernames. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap, though the read-only nature is at least implied by 'get'.

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?

One clean sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action. Slightly under-specified given the complete absence of annotations, but as concisness goes, it earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, more burden falls on the description. It lacks pagination expectations, auth context, and the critical contrast with get_user_following. An agent could call it, but might fetch the wrong direction or be surprised by truncation at the default count.

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% — both username and count are documented with descriptions, including default and max for count. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the rubric a baseline of 3 applies when the schema covers parameters thoroughly.

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?

'Get followers of a specific user' states a specific verb (get), resource (followers), and scope (of a specific user). It distinguishes well from get_user_tweets, get_user_by_username, and get_user_by_id, and the direction is clear from the name vs. get_user_following, though the description itself doesn't explicitly call out that sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It doesn't clarify the relationship to get_user_following (incoming vs. outgoing connections), nor when search_users might be preferable. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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