get_user_followers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it discloses rate-limit behavior, pagination requirement, and the identifier constraint. It also mentions next_cursor from a previous response, adding context beyond the schema.

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 compact, with a clear structure: a warning note, a requirement line, and a parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the front-loaded warning is critical.

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 is straightforward, and the description covers identification, pagination, and rate-limit constraints. The output schema handles return values, so no further detail is needed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. The Args section explains all four parameters: screen_name and user_id with formatting (without @), count with default and max, and cursor with source from previous response. This adds significant value over the bare schema.

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' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling get_user_following by explicitly mentioning followers, and the note about exactly one identifier clarifies scope.

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 usage guidance: warns of aggressive rate limiting, advises pagination via cursor, and specifies the caller must provide exactly one of screen_name/user_id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling context makes the distinction obvious.

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