List statuses you favourited

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: results are ordered newest first and are scoped to a connected account.

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?

A single sentence that conveys scope and ordering without any filler. The most relevant information is front-loaded and 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 list tool with two optional parameters, complete annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient. The return value is implied by 'statuses', ordering is stated, and selection behavior is covered by the 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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific resource ('statuses') and a specific scope ('a connected account has favourited'), plus an ordering qualifier ('newest first'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_favourited_by (who favourited a status) and get_bookmarks (bookmarked statuses).

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a connected account's favourited statuses. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as get_bookmarks or get_account_statuses.

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