get_gql_comment_likers_chunk

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Get likers on a comment'. It does not disclose that this is a paginated endpoint (chunk), that media_id is deprecated, or any rate limits or authentication needs. The agent gains no insight into side effects or constraints.

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 extremely short (two sentences), but it is not concise in a helpful way; it omits necessary details. It does front-load the purpose but fails to provide value beyond the name and title.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely lacking. It does not cover pagination behavior, required parameters, deprecated fields, or response expectations. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without external documentation.

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 no parameter descriptions exist. The description adds no meaning to parameters beyond their names. For example, 'end_cursor' for pagination is not explained, and 'media_id' being deprecated is only in the schema (deprecated: true) but not in description.

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 explicitly states 'Get likers on a comment', which clearly identifies the resource (comment likers) and action (get). The name includes 'chunk', indicating paginated retrieval, though not explicitly stated. Among sibling tools, this distinguishes itself from media likers and user chunk 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_gql_media_likers or other paginated chunk endpoints. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring comment_id) or context where this is appropriate.

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