get_user_likes

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or output format. All it says is 'Get User Likes By ID', which reveals none of these details. There is no mention of pagination (even though a cursor parameter exists) or what the response contains.

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 extremely short, but it is not concisely effective—it is an incomplete sentence ('Get User Likes By ID You can get the user(rest_id) query from...') that trails off without adding any value. The structure is broken and fails to deliver a complete thought.

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 lack of annotations, absence of an output schema, and the presence of a cursor parameter that is not explained, the description is severely incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand what results to expect, how pagination works, or any behavioral nuances. The tool is ostensibly simple, but the description still leaves critical gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (user, count, cursor), each with an example value, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 name 'get_user_likes' and the opening phrase 'Get User Likes By ID' provide a basic sense of the operation, but the description is incomplete and does not specify what 'likes' refers to (e.g., liked tweets) or how it differs from the many other user-related tools in the sibling list. It reads as a vague fragment rather than a complete purpose statement.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only additional hint, 'You can get the user(rest_id) query from...', is truncated and offers no actionable context.

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