See who boosted a status

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior; the description's 'as far as your instance knows' mostly restates the openWorldHint rather than adding new behavioral context. No contradiction.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the result ('accounts that boosted a status') and appends the key open-world caveat. No 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 read-only list operation, the definition is complete: the required status id is inferable, limit and account are schema-documented, and no output schema is needed to understand an account list. It could mention response shape or pagination, but this is not a major gap.

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 documents limit and account well, and the description's 'a status' makes the required id refer to a status ID. Still, the description itself adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, and the undocumented required id is only implicit.

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 exactly what the tool returns: 'the accounts that boosted a status', and the title mirrors it. It doesn't name the sibling get_favourited_by, so it lacks explicit differentiation, but the operation is unmistakable.

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 is given about when to call this instead of get_favourited_by or get_status_history. 'As far as your instance knows' hints at a limitation but not a decision rule.

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