List who this account follows

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds the scope that the list is specifically Midjourney creators, but it does not describe return shape, pagination, or auth requirements; with annotations covering safety, 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?

A single sentence with the verb and object front-loaded, no filler or redundant qualification. 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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description plus annotations is complete: it names what is listed, the account scope, and the safety profile. No output schema exists, but the expected result—a list of followed creators—is sufficiently implied.

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 tool has zero parameters and a 100% schema coverage baseline, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the agent. Per the rubric, zero parameters earns a baseline of 4.

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 the specific verb 'List' and names the exact resource—'Midjourney creators this account follows'—so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_folders or list_moodboards. It is more specific than the title, which removes ambiguity about what 'who' means.

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 use case is implied by naming the resource: call this when you need the account's followed Midjourney creators. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance about alternatives such as list_personalized_profiles or list_model_ratings.

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