Get Followers List

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: API key requirement, one TweetAPI request per call, ~1 unit cost with a per-result cost estimate, and pagination via completeness.nextCursor. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four short sentences, each front-loaded with the core action first, then the alternative, then cost/auth, then pagination. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape is not the description's burden; with pagination, cost, and auth covered, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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%, so count, cursor, userId, and responseFormat are all documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces count as page size and explains the cursor loop, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource with scope: 'Fetch one page of follower profiles for a user ID.' It explicitly contrasts with tweetapi_user_followers_ids, though it does not differentiate from other follower-listing siblings such as tweetapi_user_followers_v2 or tweetapi_list_followers, leaving a small ambiguity.

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?

Names the alternative (followers_ids) and its selection condition ('when you only need IDs'), and the schema further routes username-holders to user_by_username first. There is no guidance on when to prefer the v2 or list_followers variants, but the primary use case is clear.

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