get_lists_by_id_likes

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful pagination behavior details (default limits, clamping of limit values) and the 'extended' parameter's purpose, which complements the annotations. However, it does not disclose the response format or potential errors, but given the annotations cover safety, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 reasonably concise with a clear opening sentence followed by an endpoint and parameter list. It front-loads the core purpose and uses structured formatting. The pagination explanation is somewhat verbose but informative, earning it a slightly above-average score.

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?

Given the tool has a simple flat structure and an output schema exists (so return values are documented), the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. It includes important pagination behavior. However, the 'extended' parameter remains ambiguous, and there is no mention of sorting or authentication requirements, which could be relevant. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the parameters. The description partially compensates by explaining 'page' as 'The page number to retrieve' and 'limit' as 'The number of items per page' with default and maximum behavior. However, 'id' and 'extended' are only briefly described; 'extended' lacks clarity on what extended information is included. The description adds value but leaves gaps.

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 starts with a clear, specific statement: 'Get all users who liked a list.' This directly identifies the resource (a list's likes) and the action (retrieving users). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_users_by_id_lists_by_list_id_likes which gets the likes from a user's perspective, and get_lists_by_id which gets the list itself.

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 the HTTP endpoint and lists the parameters, which gives context on how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_comments_by_id_likes or get_users_by_id_likes_by_type) or any conditions for when not to use it. The 'Args' section implies that these are the parameters, but no guidance on selection is given.

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