get_comment_likers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions, or error handling. The description is silent on all of these, leaving the agent without critical context for a read operation.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any structure or additional information that would justify its brevity. Every sentence should add value, but this single sentence only states the obvious.

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?

Given four parameters and no annotation coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to construct a valid request or what the output schema contains, leaving the agent vulnerable to misuse despite the existence of an output schema.

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%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters. For instance, it does not explain that media_id and page_id help identify the comment's parent context, or what limit controls. This forces the agent to guess parameter roles.

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 clearly states the action ('Get users who liked') and the specific resource ('a specific comment'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_media_likers (which gets likes on a media item) and get_comment_replies (which gets replies).

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives. For example, a user might confuse it with get_media_likers for getting likes on a media item. No prerequisites or context for using parameters like media_id and page_id are provided.

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