get_v2_user_following

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior. It mentions 'one request required' and pagination, but these are contradictory. It doesn't explain auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens with the response (e.g., format or pagination details).

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 short but contains redundant and conflicting elements. The 'Prefer' note is useful but placed awkwardly, and the 'one request required' phrase is confusing. Could be more streamlined.

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?

No output schema, no annotations. The description fails to explain what the response contains (list of users?), how pagination works, or how this tool differs from siblings like get_v1_user_following_chunk or get_g2_user_following. The confused messaging leaves significant gaps.

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% and both parameters are well-described there. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't provide extra value.

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 is confusing: 'Get a user following (one request required)' combined with 'Get part (one page) of following users' is contradictory. It also suggests preferring /g2/user/following without clear differentiation, making the purpose unclear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The statement 'Prefer /g2/user/following' hints at a better option but doesn't explain why or when, leaving the agent without proper direction.

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