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

Despite annotations only showing readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description discloses meaningful behavior: INSERT-only, idempotent, never un-likes, and requires SF_API_KEY. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear model of side effects.

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?

Three tight sentences deliver purpose, behavior, sibling distinction, and authentication requirement with no filler. The most important functional trait is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful, non-redundant information.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and annotations present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, how it behaves, how it differs from save_paper, and the API key requirement. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents arxiv_id as 'arXiv ID of the paper to like.' The description adds no new parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the single self-explanatory parameter; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description opens with 'Like a paper' and explains the purpose: a 'more like this' calibration signal that tunes the For You feed. It explicitly distinguishes itself from save_paper, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it does not do.

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?

States when to use this tool versus save_paper: 'like expresses taste for ranking; save bookmarks for later reading.' It also explains key constraints—INSERT-only and idempotent—so the agent knows calling it repeatedly is safe and will not un-like.

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