post_like_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields ({is_like, total, is_following}) in the absence of an output schema, but it does not clarify whose like status is returned or any auth requirements.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the required parameter is flagged clearly. The telegraphic style borders on under-specification rather than excess, but nothing wasteful is present.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool this is adequate: the return fields are enumerated despite there being no output schema, and the required input is stated. It still leaves the semantics of is_like/is_following (presumably relative to the authenticated user) unexplained, which a caller may need.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single post_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Haraj post id.', so the description's 'Required: post_id' adds nothing new. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 names the resource (a post) and the data it exposes ({is_like, total, is_following}), so an agent can infer it reads like/engagement status. However, it never states a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and offers no differentiation from siblings such as comments or get_post_details, leaving the operation type to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of when this is preferable to get_post_details, comments, or other post-related siblings. The only usage-like content is a restatement of the required parameter, which does not tell the agent when to select this tool.

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