get_user_following

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that Twitter aggressively rate-limits follower/following requests, advises pagination via cursor, and warns against looping without backoff. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it stops short of covering potential auth requirements or visibility constraints.

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 and front-loaded: the critical rate-limit warning appears first, followed by the arg requirement and a labeled Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure makes the parameter details easy to scan.

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 four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary ground: purpose, parameter usage, rate-limit caution, and pagination. The output schema exists, so return values are already documented elsewhere; no additional explanation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: screen_name (without @), user_id (numeric Twitter ID), count (default 20, max 100), and cursor (from previous response's next_cursor). It also clarifies the exactly-one-of constraint, adding meaning that the schema alone does not provide.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get accounts that a user follows.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_user_followers' by explicitly naming the following list, so there is no ambiguity about which direction of the social graph it retrieves.

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 clear usage context: the caller must provide exactly one of screen_name or user_id, and it warns to use the tool sparingly due to rate limits. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_user_followers, but the purpose statement makes the distinction obvious, and the constraint+rate-limit guidance is solid.

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