get_v1_user_search_following

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the response format, pagination, rate limits, or the effect of the 'force' parameter (skipping privacy check). The minimal description leaves the agent unaware of important behaviors.

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 (two sentences), which is concise but at the expense of necessary details. It is not front-loaded with important information; instead it repeats the HTTP method and path in a bracket prefix. While brief, it could be restructured to highlight the core functionality first.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools (e.g., search users, search followers), the description is too vague. It does not explain what is returned, how results are filtered, or how it differs from related endpoints. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage (only 'force' has a description), the description adds no additional meaning for 'user_id' or 'query'. It does not explain what values are valid or how they affect the search. The tool description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states 'Search Following' and 'Search users by following users', which gives a general idea but is ambiguous: it could mean searching for users that a user follows or searching by following criteria. It does not clearly specify that it searches within a user's following list using a query string, and lacks explicit mention of the required user_id and query parameters.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_v1_user_search_followers, get_v1_search_users, or get_v1_user_following_chunk. The description fails to mention the use case of searching within a specific user's following list, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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