Followers

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: it consumes paid API credits, requires confirm=true, is a read-like POST that does not publish to platforms, and documents the pagination contract. It does not explain the readOnlyHint=false annotation directly, but the 'read-like POST' note comes close to reconciling 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then pagination, then cost gating. Dense but every sentence carries information; the credit/confirm note is worth its space for a paid call.

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 helpfully enumerates the returned `followers` array fields and `total`, and covers pagination and the credit gate. Given 6 optional params and a read-only-ish call, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the sibling routing gap remains.

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 coverage is 100% with 6 documented parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description restates handle/user_id and min_time pagination, and its only marginally additive point (user_id being faster) is already in the schema, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 the follower list of a TikTok account by handle or user_id, with an explicit use case (seeing who follows a creator, subscriber data). It does not name the obvious sibling tiktok_following (the inverse list), so the agent must infer the distinction rather than being routed explicitly.

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?

Provides real usage context — paginate with `min_time` from the previous response, and confirm=true is required for the credit-consuming call. However, it never says when to prefer this over tiktok_following/tiktok_search_users or when not to use it, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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