get_user_followers

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses rate-limiting behavior, pagination via cursor, parameter constraints, and default values. It does not mention idempotency or read-only nature, but overall transparency is good.

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 concise with a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose, a rate-limit note, a constraint, and a parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and rate limiting. With an output schema present, return values are external. It lacks mention of authentication, but that is implicit for Twitter APIs. Minor gap prevents a 5.

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?

Each parameter is described with meaningful details beyond the schema: screen_name format, user_id as numeric, count with default/max, cursor as pagination token. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates.

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 'Get a user's followers list', using a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes from sibling 'get_user_following' by name, it does not explicitly differentiate itself, but the context is sufficient.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on rate limiting, pagination, and the requirement to provide exactly one of screen_name or user_id. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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