Get User Following

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds material facts: an API key is required, each call is one TweetAPI request costing roughly 1 unit with a per-result cost estimate, and results are paginated. It also closes the pagination loop by naming completeness.nextCursor as the next cursor argument.

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 tight sentences ordered as purpose, alternatives, cost/auth behavior, then pagination mechanics. Nothing is repeated from the name or title and no sentence is filler.

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 an output schema available there is no need to describe return values, and the description instead covers what the schema cannot: auth, cost, page-size limitation, and the cursor continuation loop. Everything an agent needs to call this correctly and paginate is present.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds the non-obvious constraint that page size cannot be set here (unlike the sibling list tool) and ties the cursor parameter to a concrete field in the prior result. It does not expand on responseFormat beyond what the schema already states.

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 opening sentence pairs a specific verb (fetch) with a specific resource (one page of profiles a user ID follows) and pins the scope at 'default page size.' It explicitly separates itself from tweetapi_user_following_list and tweetapi_user_following_ids, so an agent can route between the three followers/following variants without opening any 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 names both alternatives and the exact condition that selects each: use user_following_list when you need count-based page sizing, and user_following_ids when only IDs are needed. That covers the realistic decision points for this family of tools.

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