get_gql_user_following_chunk

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

The description includes a billing warning (2 requests per call) which is behaviorally relevant. However, it does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or the effect of the 'force' parameter.

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 very short and front-loaded with the endpoint. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices important information, making it more under-specified than concise.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, pagination implications, and billing costs, but the description only covers the billing. It does not explain the return type, how to paginate, or how to use 'end_cursor'. This is insufficient for a paginated list endpoint.

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?

The description does not explain any parameters. The schema provides descriptions only for 'force', but 'user_id' and 'end_cursor' are left unexplained. With 33% schema coverage, the description should add context but does not.

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 it gets a user's following list and mentions it requires one request. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_v1_user_following_chunk or get_v2_user_following, and it does not specify that it returns a paginated chunk.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus the many similar sibling tools. The description offers no context for selection or prerequisites.

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