List pending follow requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful locked-account context, but does not disclose details like return shape or edge cases. With annotations carrying most of the behavioral burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the output concept, and the second adds an important scope restriction. Every word 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?

For a read-only list operation with fully documented optional parameters, the description is mostly complete: it conveys what is returned and the locked-account condition. A minor gap is not pointing to the related approve action, but the schema and annotations cover the rest.

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%, and limit, max_id, and account each have clear descriptions. The tool description contributes no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 title 'List pending follow requests' and description 'Accounts waiting for you to approve their follow' clearly identify the resource and the action. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_followers and answer_follow_request by focusing on pending approval, though it does not explicitly contrast a sibling tool.

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 gives one useful condition: 'Only meaningful on a locked account,' which is a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explain when to use this tool instead of related tools like answer_follow_request or get_followers, leaving alternatives to inference.

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