status_favourited_by

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic read operation ('Get accounts'), but omits information about pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is ordered. This leaves the agent without critical operational details.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler words. Every part contributes to the core purpose. It is perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks details about return format, pagination, or error cases. A slightly more complete description might mention that the result is an array of account objects, but the current version is minimally viable.

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 has 100% descriptive coverage for the single parameter 'status_id' (described as 'Numeric status ID.'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation for high 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'accounts that favourited a status', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'status_favourite' (which performs the action) and 'status_reblogged_by' (which retrieves accounts that reblogged).

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. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or suggested contexts. For example, it does not clarify that the status must exist or that the user must have visibility.

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