Get article reactions

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

The description states it is read-only, reinforcing the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint: false). It adds context that no reaction is added or removed, requires an API key, returns counts per type, and clarifies that zero counts are valid answers. It goes beyond annotations by mentioning API key requirement and response semantics.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core function. It uses bullet-like sentences with no filler, and every sentence adds value—usage guidance, read-only reassurance, and zero-count clarification. No wasted words.

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 low parameter count, high schema coverage, and robust annotations, the description is quite complete. It provides usage context, response expectations, and authentication note, but doesn't explain the output schema (though none exists). The only minor gap is not detailing exact response format, but that is not required given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with a description for article_id (UUID from article tools). The description adds the context that the tool returns the caller's own reactions and counts, but does not add much parameter-specific info beyond what's in the schema. Since schema coverage is high and the parameter is simple, the baseline of 3 gets a slight bump for confirming usage context.

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 reads reaction totals on one article and which reactions the authenticated account has left, specifying the scope ('one article at a time'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_reaction and remove_reaction by focusing on reading current state rather than mutating it.

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?

It explicitly advises using this tool before add_reaction or remove_reaction to determine current state ('not yet liked' vs 'already liked'), and notes it covers one article at a time. This gives clear guidance on when to use it and how it fits with alternatives.

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