List followers

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: 'Pages automatically past the 40-per-request ceiling,' which tells the agent that pagination is handled and multiple requests may occur transparently.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the pagination behavior is added as a second valuable sentence. 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 simple read-only listing tool, the description is mostly adequate, especially with annotations covering safety. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return shape or ordering, and it does not distinguish itself from get_following or explain the required acct parameter. The schema partially compensates, but the description alone leaves some gaps.

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?

The schema already documents 75% of the parameters with descriptions for limit, max_id, and account. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The required acct parameter remains undocumented in both description and schema, but the high schema coverage keeps this at baseline.

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 identifies the resource: accounts that follow a given account. The title adds 'List', making the operation unambiguous. It is implicitly distinguishable from get_following (which lists accounts a given account follows), but it does not explicitly name the sibling or use a strong verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_following, get_account, or get_relationships. It provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing.

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