x_api_get_users_liked_posts

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Risk: read-only', outlines required permissions (OAuth scopes), describes environment-selection behavior (scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId/scopeAccountId), lists common failure conditions, includes a safety warning about sensitive data, and provides the expected response shape. This is comprehensive and goes beyond typical descriptions.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Use when, Do not use when, Risk, Required permissions, etc.), making it scannable. It is somewhat verbose and repeats 'Get liked Posts' in the Use when section, but every other section adds meaningful context. The example is a helpful addition.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers a lot: expected response shape, failure conditions, auth prerequisites, environment selection, and an example. It omits details on certain parameters (authorizationKey, preferredAuthType) and pagination behavior, but overall provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 9 parameters but the description only covers 3 (id, max_results, pagination_token) and partially explains scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. It does not explain authorizationKey or preferredAuthType. Given the 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates significantly for some parameters but leaves others unexplained, so a middle score 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?

The description states 'Get liked Posts' which clearly identifies the action and resource, but it lacks specificity on whose liked posts are retrieved (the user ID is implied by the 'id' parameter). It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool x_api_get_posts_liking_users, which performs the inverse operation. The tool name provides some clarity, but the description could be more precise.

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 'Use when' section is tautological ('Get liked Posts'), providing no additional guidance. However, the 'Do not use when' section advises users to prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion when exploring, and mentions prerequisites. It does not offer clear guidance on when to use this tool over other X API tools with similar read-only behavior.

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