get_post_likes

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. With no annotations available, the description fails to mention important details such as pagination (especially given the 'limit' parameter), ordering of results, whether the list includes the user's own like, or any rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 short sentence that is direct and easy to parse. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the schema covers the parameters, but there is no output schema and no additional context about the return value structure or edge cases. The description alone may be sufficient for a basic 'get list' operation, but it lacks the richer detail seen in higher-scoring tools (e.g., pagination behavior, filtering options, or sibling alternatives).

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 covers 100% of parameters (post_id and limit) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely indicating the result is a 'list of users', which is already obvious. No additional context about parameter formats, defaults, or relationships is provided.

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 'Get list of users who liked a post' provides a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of users who liked a post'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like like_post/unlike_post and other read operations. It is concise and unambiguous.

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, nor are any exclusions mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred over similar list-type tools or whether there are prerequisites such as authentication or ownership.

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