post_like_info

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only lists output field names. It does not state whether the tool reads data, requires authentication, has side effects, or what 'is_following' actually refers to (e.g., following the post author). No rate limits, error behavior, or safety profile is mentioned.

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 very brief, but the second sentence is redundant with the schema. The only substantive content is the output-field list at the start; the rest adds no new information and is arguably filler.

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 tool, this is minimal but insufficient. It lacks an explicit verb, clarification of ambiguous output fields, and any authentication or edge-case context. An agent could guess it is a read-only like/follow check, but the description does not confirm this.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not: 'Required: post_id' duplicates the schema's required array and does not explain the meaning of post_id, valid values, or how it filters the result.

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 states the tool returns three named fields ('is_like, total, is_following') for a post, making it clear this is a post-status query. It is distinct from sibling tools like is_following_user or is_following_tag because it targets a post's like/follow state, though this is not made explicit.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The only additional note, 'Required: post_id,' merely repeats schema information and does not explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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