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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true), the description reveals idempotency with 'already: true', no unlike operation, channel limitations, cross-blog linking behavior, and the naver_not_allowed error for self-likes. This is rich behavioral disclosure with no contradiction to the 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 dense yet efficient: core behavior, idempotency, no-unlike caveat, channel support, edge cases, and error behavior are all included without redundant wording. Every sentence earns its place.

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 operation's complexity, the description covers channel restrictions, error responses, idempotency, authentication-driven cross-blog behavior, and parameter semantics. With no output schema, it sufficiently explains what an agent needs to know to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that replyTo selects a reply and that links can be used for posts on another blog, but most parameter meaning is already present in the schema. It adds limited extra semantic detail.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Like a post, or a reply under it when you pass replyTo.' It also clarifies scope by saying 'There is no unlike,' which distinguishes this tool from other engagement tools like reply or follow.

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 gives explicit channel guidance ('Naver Blog only today; other channels answer not_supported') and explains idempotent behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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