Get Post Reactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific reaction types returned, providing useful output context, but does not disclose other behavioral specifics like pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements, which are not covered by annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Including an 'Args' section that repeats post_id is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall text is short and the reaction list is valuable. No wasted sentences.

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 tool with two parameters (one required, one optional enum), the description plus schema and annotations cover the essentials: input (post_id) and output nature (reaction counts). The lack of an output schema and explicit response_format guidance is minor given the schema covers it. The agent can call it correctly without missing information.

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 coverage is 50% (response_format has a description, post_id does not). The description adds a basic meaning for post_id ('Post ID') but duplicates the schema's type info, and it does not mention response_format beyond the schema. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but does not go beyond what the schema already implies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Gets reaction counts (like, love, haha, wow, sad, angry) on a post.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like meta_get_post (post content) and meta_get_post_insights (analytics), which do not focus on reaction counts.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the name and description alone.

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