get_twitter_following

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return fields (profiles, bios, follower counts) but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. The max_results parameter hints at a limit but not pagination behavior.

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?

Two sentences, direct, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and 15 siblings, the description covers the input and output well. It could mention ordering or default pagination, but overall it adequately describes what the tool does and returns.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (username without @, max_results with range). The description adds context about return fields but does not add meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'accounts that a Twitter/X user is following', and mentions return fields (bios, follower counts). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_twitter_followers' (which gets followers, not following) and 'search_twitter_users' (search vs. specific user's 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 implies usage when needing a user's following list, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. No when-not-to-use information is given.

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