See who liked a post

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not restate that. It adds useful behavioral context with 'newest first' ordering, but it does not mention pagination behavior or describe the response shape beyond 'accounts.'

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core result and ordering with no filler or redundant information. 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 lookup, the description combined with the fully documented schema and safety annotations covers the essential calling context. It could explicitly state that results are paginated via limit/cursor, but the schema already provides those details, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 input schema has 100% coverage and clearly documents uri, limit, cursor, and account. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the resource and result: accounts that liked a specific post, ordered newest first. It is distinguishable from related tools like get_reposted_by or get_liked_posts by subject matter, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate itself from.

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 intended use is implied by the description: call this when you need the accounts that liked a post. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_reposted_by or get_quotes, leaving some routing ambiguity among sibling tools.

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