list_users_requests_following

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate read safety. It adds the 'pending' state of the returned data but does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether the requests are incoming or outgoing, or how the extension parameter changes the response.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a useful endpoint. The Args line adds only generic information and does not earn its place as strongly, but there is no wasted prose.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description could be minimal, but it leaves important context ambiguous: whose following requests are returned, whether they are pending incoming or outgoing requests, and what 'extended' actually controls. This makes it incomplete for reliable selection among closely related user-request tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'extended: Extended information to include in the response' is the only explanation, and it is vague enough to apply to any parameter; it does not define accepted values, formats, or the effect on the response.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get pending following requests' and the endpoint path. It clearly identifies the action and object, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like list_users_requests or get_users_by_id_following.

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 prefer this tool over related tools, no mention of scoping to the current user, and no alternatives or exclusions. The only hint is the word 'pending,' which is too weak to route an agent among the many request/following siblings.

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