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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the safety bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond them: the action is performed as the brand account and only on Facebook and TikTok. It says nothing about failure modes (e.g. already-liked, comment deleted) or whether the like is attributable to the brand publicly.

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?

Two clauses, front-loaded with the primary action before the toggle and the usage restriction. No filler, though the platform parenthetical interrupts the main sentence slightly.

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?

A two-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent toggle with no output schema needs little more than this. Remaining gap is what happens on failure and whether the response confirms the resulting state, which matters for an idempotent toggle the agent may need to verify.

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 50%: only comment_ref is documented, and the description mirrors that by pointing to list_comments as its source. It does add the crucial meaning of liked=false as removal, which the schema leaves as a bare boolean with default true, but it never states the default or that omitting liked means like. Adequate, not rich.

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 ('Da me gusta a un comentario'), names the source of the identifier (list_comments), the acting identity (brand account), the platforms (Facebook and TikTok), and the inverse behavior (liked=false quita). An agent can distinguish this from hide_comment, pin_comment or reply_to_comment without opening the 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?

Explicitly constrains invocation to cases where the user asked for it ('Úsala solo cuando el usuario lo pidió'), which is real when-not guidance against proactive engagement. It does not name an alternative tool or explain what to do when the target platform is unsupported, so it falls short of a full routing rule.

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