get_user_followers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the core behavior (fetching followers with pagination) and return format, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether data is cached. The mention of pagination is helpful but incomplete without explaining page size or total pages.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns, but includes an unnecessary editorial comment ('A high follower count often indicates...') that doesn't help tool selection. The core information is front-loaded and generally efficient.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, pagination), no annotations, but with a detailed output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic operation and return structure, though it could better address behavioral aspects like authentication needs or error handling.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description repeats the parameter explanations verbatim from the schema ('username: The user's handle', 'page: Page number for pagination') without adding any additional semantic context, such as username format constraints or pagination defaults.

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 states the specific action ('Fetch the list') and resource ('users following a specific user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_user_following (which fetches users being followed) and get_user_summary (which provides broader user data). The verb 'fetch' precisely indicates a retrieval operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_summary (which might include follower count) or get_user_following (which retrieves the inverse relationship). It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as authentication or rate limits, leaving usage context unclear.

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