List LINE OA followers

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

Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and non-destructive behavior. The description adds region-gating details, cursor pagination semantics, and error cases (403). It does not cover rate limits but the annotations already handle safety; the description adds meaningful context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with bullet points, a warning, and an alternative recommendation. It is mostly concise but uses an emoji and some extra formatting that could be trimmed. Every sentence adds value, but the inclusion of the icon is minor noise.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a complete return structure (user_ids, count, has_more, next_continuation_token). It also covers region restrictions, pagination, and alternative for large OAs. However, it lacks explanation of the response_format parameter, which is an oversight. Overall, it is mostly complete for a pagination tool.

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 low (25%: 1 of 4 parameters described in schema). The description adds meaning to page_size (range 1-1000, default 300), continuation_token (cursor pagination), and oa (optional). However, it completely omits the response_format parameter, which has an enum and no description, leaving a gap. The description partially compensates for low schema coverage but misses one parameter.

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 description clearly states the verb 'page through' and the specific resource 'every user that has added the OA as a friend'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning an alternative for large OAs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states regional and tier restrictions (only TH/JP/TW premium OAs, others get 403) and recommends an alternative tool for large OAs over 50k followers. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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