get_post_reactions_anger_total

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'fetches' (implies read-only) and returns a dict with anger count. It lacks details about authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a real-time or cached count.

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?

Extremely concise with three short sentences that each add value: states purpose, specifies input, specifies output format. Zero wasted words and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers basics but lacks context about the Facebook API environment, error handling, or what the dict structure contains beyond 'anger count'. Given the sibling tools indicate a social media context, more platform-specific guidance would help.

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%, but the description mentions 'post_id (str)' which matches the single parameter. However, it doesn't add meaningful context beyond what's obvious from the parameter name - no format requirements, validation rules, or examples.

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 clearly states the verb 'fetch' and resource 'number of Anger reactions' with the target 'post'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_post_reactions_like_total by specifying the reaction type 'Anger', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other reaction tools beyond naming differences.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_post_reactions_like_total or get_post_insights. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites exist.

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