List post likes

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive semantics, so the description need not restate them. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: ordering (newest first), a hard cap (up to 100), and the fact that the returned member_id plugs into other tools.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The phrase 'as the like count under it opens' is slightly awkward UI-flavored prose but still earns its place by conveying invocation context.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: result ordering, result cap, and the key of the returned records. It does not mention pagination or what happens past 100 likes, which is a minor gap for a capped list tool.

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 100%, so group, limit, and post_id are already documented. The description only reinforces that post_id may be a comment id or a post id, which the schema also states, so it adds marginal meaning beyond structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb (lists members) and resource (who liked a post or comment), with scope details: newest first, capped at 100. This clearly separates it from the write-side sibling like_post, though it never names the alternative explicitly.

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?

It establishes the retrieval context ('as the like count under it opens') and gives downstream chaining guidance ('member_id is what send_message and get_member take'), which tells the agent what to do with the result. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives.

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