Get follow suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the mode-dependent behavior (actor changes what the result set means), but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or whether results are personalized per connected account.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary behavior front-loaded and the actor distinction immediately following. The trailing clause about finding a niche is slightly editorial but earns its place as the only usage hint present.

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 read-only, three-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how the actor parameter changes it. It could still say more about result ordering or the connected-account dimension, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the actor semantics and the 'omit for suggestions for you' default. The description restates the actor behavior without adding format, ranking, or quality details beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 resource (suggested follow accounts) and clarifies the two operating modes: default 'suggestions for you' vs. actor-seeded 'similar accounts'. It is distinguishable from search_actors, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'which is the better way to find a niche' hints at when the actor mode is preferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no named alternative (e.g., search_actors) for discovery tasks. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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