get_gql_media_likers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It notes that paging is unavailable, which is a behavioral trait. But it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior (e.g., invalid media_id), or whether it returns partial data. For a read operation, more transparency would help.

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 concise—two lines with no extraneous text. Every sentence adds value: the endpoint path, the purpose, and the important paging limitation. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema and many siblings, the description lacks completeness. It fails to describe the return format (e.g., what fields the likers response includes), does not differentiate from similar endpoints, and omits any context about required permissions or typical use cases. For a simple one-parameter tool, more context is expected.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (media_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what media_id is (e.g., numeric ID, URL parameter), its format, or how to obtain it. With no schema documentation in the description, the agent has insufficient context to correctly supply the parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('Get likers on a media') and the resource ('media'). The title includes the HTTP method and endpoint path. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_v1_media_likers or get_v2_media_likers, relying on the naming convention 'gql' to imply a GraphQL version.

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 mentions a key constraint ('paging is unavailable'), which is helpful for usage. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative likers endpoints (v1, v2) or whether it requires authentication. The context is minimal.

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