See who favourited a status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context about federation: the result is limited to the local instance's knowledge, which directly explains the openWorldHint and is critical for setting expectations. This goes beyond the structured annotations and enhances behavioral understanding.

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 two short sentences, with the core entity stated first and the federation caveat as a supplementary clause. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the first sentence is a noun phrase without a verb. Still, it earns high marks for brevity and clarity.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema, so the description must explain what is returned; it does state 'accounts that favourited a status', which is a reasonable high-level return. However, it does not mention the required 'id' parameter, nor does it describe pagination or any response structure. The federation context helps, but gaps remain for a straightforward API call.

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 description does not mention any parameter, and only two of three parameters have schema descriptions (limit and account). The required 'id' parameter lacks both schema description and any clue in the description about identifying the status. Schema coverage at 67% is partial, and the description fails to compensate for the missing id semantics.

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: accounts that favourited a status. The title 'See who favourited a status' reinforces the action, and the federation caveat distinguishes this from a universal list. It is specific enough to separate from siblings like get_boosted_by, though it lacks an explicit verb in the main sentence.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions federation's limitation but does not state when it should be chosen over get_boosted_by or get_favourites. No exclusions or context signals are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and title.

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