get_user_following

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a FollowList object with users and total_count, adding value beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'fetch' but not explicit).

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 (purpose, args, returns, use cases) and is appropriately sized. It avoids unnecessary details, but the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections slightly repeat schema info, which could be more concise. Overall, it's front-loaded and 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 low complexity, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema (implied by the returns description), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and usage guidelines. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like safety or performance details.

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 documents both parameters (username and page). The description repeats the parameter info in the 'Args:' section but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 tool's purpose with 'Fetch the list of users that a user follows,' specifying the verb (fetch) and resource (list of users followed). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user_followers, which fetches followers rather than following. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as get_user_summary, which might include similar data.

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 to:' section provides clear context for when to use this tool, listing purposes like discovering influential users and mapping social connections. It implies usage scenarios but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., get_user_followers for a different perspective).

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