Check whether a gist is liked

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds a valuable behavioral detail: the tool distinguishes 'not liked' from 'not visible to you'. This goes beyond the schema and annotations and helps an agent interpret non-obvious negative responses.

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 no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the important negative-case distinction follows immediately. 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 single-parameter read-only tool with complete schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the essential call semantics and the key ambiguity in the result. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the gistId parameter already includes a helpful explanation with a source ('the "id" field returned by list_gists/search_gists') and a caveat ('not its title'). The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, 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 uses a specific verb ('Report') with a clear resource ('whether the token owner has liked the given gist'), making the tool's function immediately apparent. It also highlights a meaningful distinction from plain boolean checking, which helps differentiate it from related gist tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to know whether the current token owner liked a specific gist. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the read-only check semantics and the 'not visible to you' nuance give adequate context for selection.

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