Get Threads Followers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds context about scope requirement and follower visibility, which goes beyond annotations. However, it could mention pagination behavior or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded, with structured arg list and note. Every sentence provides value. Loses a point for not fully integrating the undocumented parameter.

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?

Given low complexity and existing annotations, the description adequately covers scope, visibility, return fields, and pagination cursor. Could mention error cases or rate limits, but sufficient for a read-only list tool.

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?

Description explains three of four parameters (threads_user_id, limit, after) with default and optional info, partially compensating for low schema coverage (25%). However, it omits response_format, creating a gap. Return values are described, which is helpful.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'lists' and resource 'followers of the authenticated Threads user', distinguishing it from sibling tools like threads_get_following (lists who the user follows). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description indicates when to use (to list followers) and provides prerequisites (threads_basic scope, visible followers). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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