get_post_reactions_haha_total

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 states the tool fetches data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or details about the output format beyond 'dict with haha count'. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with three brief sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, input, and output without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information in a clear, structured manner.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and input/output, but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, making it incomplete for robust agent use despite the simple context.

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 description mentions the input parameter 'post_id (str)' and the output 'dict with haha count', which adds some meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain what 'post_id' represents (e.g., a Facebook post ID format) or provide examples, so it only partially compensates for the low 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fetch number of 'Haha' reactions' with a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('Haha reactions'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_post_reactions_like_total' or 'get_post_reactions_anger_total', which follow the same pattern for different reaction types, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools for other reaction types (e.g., 'get_post_reactions_like_total') or clarify if this is part of a broader set of reaction-fetching tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from context without explicit direction.

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