get_v1_user_following_by_secUid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it is a live TikTok request billed per call, and it discloses pagination semantics (one page per call, next_page_id chaining). It does not describe rate limits or failure modes, but the added operational context is substantial.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the routing decision, then pagination mechanics and cost, then the endpoint. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: how to identify the target, when to pick this tool over its sibling, how to paginate, and the cost model. Return structure is only partially implied, but the pagination field is called out explicitly.

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 only 33% (only `page_id` is described), but the description compensates by explaining that `page_id` should carry `next_page_id` from the previous response and that `count` sets page size with default 30. That covers all three parameters, though it adds little about `secUid`'s format beyond the schema's pattern/length constraints.

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 and resource ('List accounts a TikTok user follows by `secUid`') with explicit scope, and names the sibling it is not (get_v1_user_following_by_username) so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('when you already have the `secUid` from a profile') and names the exact alternative plus the condition that selects it ('when you only have a handle'). Nothing is left to inference.

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