get_post_reactions_sorry_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 it fetches data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's safe to use. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by input and output details. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating sections). Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool.

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 complexity (a data-fetching tool), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, and output structure beyond a basic dict, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.

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 adds minimal semantics: it names the input parameter 'post_id' and specifies the output as a dict with sorry count. With 0% schema description coverage, it partially compensates by documenting the parameter and output, but doesn't explain the post_id format or provide examples, leaving gaps.

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 the resource 'number of Sorry reactions', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_post_reactions_like_total' by specifying the reaction type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the description text.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other reaction-type tools (e.g., 'get_post_reactions_like_total') or broader tools like 'get_post_insights'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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