x_api_stream_likes_sample10

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the tool is read-only, requires a bearer token, explains the scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId environment-selection behavior, lists common failure conditions (missing credentials, rate limits, etc.), and warns that responses can include sensitive data. This is extensive and goes well beyond minimal disclosure.

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 clear labels (Use when, Do not use when, Risk, Required permissions, Environment-selection behavior, Parameter formats, Expected response shape, Common failure conditions, Recommended tools, Safety warnings, Example). Every sentence adds distinct value, and the most critical information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides an expected response shape, common failure conditions, recommended prerequisite/follow-up tools, a concrete example, and safety warnings. It also covers authentication and scoping semantics. This is comprehensive and gives an agent all the context needed to invoke the tool correctly, even without an output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds formats and constraints for backfill_minutes, partition, start_time, and end_time, and explains the role of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey in environment selection. However, it omits preferredAuthType and authorizationKey, and does not explain the functional meaning of parameters like partition or backfill_minutes beyond type/requiredness. It adds significant semantics but not complete 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 description opens with 'Stream sampled Likes,' which is a specific verb and resource. The tool name includes 'sample10' and the description uses 'sampled,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like x_api_stream_likes_firehose and x_api_stream_likes_compliance. This clearly indicates what the tool does and differentiates it from similar stream tools.

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 explicitly states 'Use when: Stream sampled Likes' and 'Do not use when: a more specific auth/configuration tool is required... prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first.' It also lists prerequisites (bearer token) and recommended follow-up tools (x_connection_info, x_auth_get_scope_credentials, x_api_request), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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