get_post_reactions_love_total

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's idempotent. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external data.

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 concise and front-loaded, using just three sentences to state purpose, input, and output. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the structure of the output dict (e.g., keys like 'love_count'), error cases, or how it differs from similar tools. For a data-fetching tool with external dependencies, this leaves too much unspecified.

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' and specifies its type ('str'), but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's in the schema (which only has a title 'Post Id'). It doesn't explain what a valid post_id looks like or provide 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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('number of Love reactions'), making the purpose understandable. 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 but for different reaction types.

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 like 'get_post_reactions_like_total' or 'get_post_reactions_anger_total', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage.

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