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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' which is a cost-related behavior, but it does not state that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or other effects. The disclosure is minimal.

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 a single concise sentence plus a billing note. It goes straight to the point, avoids fluff, and is well-structured for quick scanning. Every word contributes to the core purpose or cost.

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 the tool has two parameters (both optional), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should have provided details on the 'start' parameter (pagination), the acceptable format of 'urn' (multiple values?), and what the response contains. It only covers the primary function, leaving the agent to guess about pagination and output, making it incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It only mentions that the comment is identified 'by URN', but does not explain the 'start' parameter at all (likely for pagination). The example shows comma-separated URNs, but this is not described. The description adds no meaningful meaning beyond the raw schema examples.

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 states 'get all likes for given comment by URN' with a clear verb ('get') and resource ('likes for given comment'), and it specifies the identifier ('by URN'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_api_v1_posts_likes and get_api_v1_comments_all, so the purpose is 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?

The purpose implies usage (to fetch comment likes), but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or typical scenarios. It only states the action and billing, so guidance is merely implied.

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