See who liked a post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the structured fields — results are returned 'newest first' — but omits anything about pagination behavior or result shape.

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?

A single short sentence fragment with zero waste and the key scoping facts (accounts, specific post, ordering) front-loaded. It is arguably too terse to be maximally useful, but nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, so the description needn't explain return fields. Still, it says nothing about pagination despite exposing limit/cursor, and nothing that separates it from its inverse sibling get_liked_posts — an agent could easily pick the wrong one.

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%, so all four parameters (uri, limit, cursor, account) are already documented in the schema, including the account fallback and cursor semantics. The description adds the ordering of results but no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource — the accounts that liked a given post — which is unambiguous enough for an agent to identify the operation. However, it is a noun fragment with no explicit verb, and it does not distinguish itself from the easily-confused sibling get_liked_posts (the inverse direction: posts a user liked).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_liked_posts, get_reposted_by, or get_quotes, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the phrase 'liked a specific post.'

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