get_user_following

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get users') without mentioning ordering, pagination behavior, rate limits, authorization requirements, or whether the response contains full user objects. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the tool's basic purpose.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is not padded, but it is very brief; this makes it concise rather than appropriately detailed for more complex use cases, so a slight deduction from the top is warranted.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the returned data looks like or how pagination via 'count' behaves. It also fails to distinguish itself from get_user_followers, making the overall context incomplete for an agent deciding whether this tool fits the task.

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%, with both 'username' and 'count' already described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting and the description is not required to compensate.

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 uses a specific action ('Get') and a clear resource ('users that a specific user is following'), so an agent can understand the basic operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_user_followers, relying on the tool name to disambiguate the direction of the relationship.

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 is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The sibling list includes get_user_followers, and the description does not mention that get_user_following is for the 'following' direction while get_user_followers is for the reverse, leaving selection partially to inference.

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