get_favoriters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination behavior via cursor, which is useful, but does not disclose response format, authorization requirements, or behavior of the count parameter. This adds some transparency but not fully comprehensive.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and immediately mentions pagination. No filler; every word earns its place.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers the core purpose and pagination, but the absence of output schema and lack of count semantics leave some ambiguity. It is adequate but not feature-complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds meaning to the cursor parameter by mentioning pagination and implies tweet_id as the target tweet. However, the count parameter is not explained at all, leaving a meaningful gap with low 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 'List' and identifies the resource 'accounts that liked the given tweet,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_retweeters and get_user_tweets.

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 clear context for when to use (when listing likers of a tweet) but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as differentiating from get_retweeters for retweets. Thus it meets 'clear context, no exclusions' but not explicit alternative guidance.

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