Followers

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false) already frame this as a non-cached, non-read operation, and the description adds context the annotations cannot: it consumes paid API credits, requires confirm=true, supports cursor pagination, and clarifies that the read-like POST does not publish to social platforms. That clarification explains the surprising readOnlyHint=false rather than contradicting it.

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?

Three tight sentences with the resource and return shape front-loaded, followed by input forms, pagination, and the credit/confirm caveat. Every sentence carries information; the final clause about social platforms is slightly tangential to a GitHub tool but still earns its place as a safety clarification.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (login, avatar, user URL, type, GitHub IDs) and documents pagination and the confirmation gate. For a 5-parameter, zero-required tool it is nearly complete; only the exact pagination termination/cursor behavior is left unspecified.

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 the schema already defines each parameter; the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by framing handle/url as alternative input forms and by surfacing the confirm requirement operationally, which an agent skimming only property docs might miss.

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+resource ('Retrieves public GitHub followers for a user') and goes on to enumerate the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clearly separable from the sibling github_following (reverse direction) 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?

It says how to supply the target ('Pass username, handle, or a full GitHub user url') and states the confirm=true prerequisite, which is real invocation guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over github_following or other github_* siblings, and no exclusions are given, so usage is only implied.

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