get_g2_user_followers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context absent from annotations: it is a live Instagram request with one billed request per page, which matters for cost planning. It stops short of describing result shape or when the list ends, keeping it just under full marks.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: purpose first, then sibling routing, then paging and cost. Every clause is load-bearing and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-related context an agent needs (one page per call, cursor chaining, billing per page) for a two-parameter read tool. Nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

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 carry the burden and largely does: `user_id` identifies the target account and `page_id` is explicitly defined as the cursor taken from the previous response. It omits any format hint for `user_id` (numeric vs. username-derived), leaving one small gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List accounts that follow an Instagram user') with pagination scope ('one page per call'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the two most confusable siblings by naming them. An agent can identify this tool's job without inspecting any schema.

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?

Explicit routing: use `get_v1_user_search_followers` to search names among followers and `get_g2_user_following` for the reverse direction. It also states the paging procedure (pass the previous response's cursor as `page_id`), covering both when-to-use and how-to-continue.

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