getLikedTweets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' posts (implying a read operation) but doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results (though the schema hints at pagination), or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the schema hint), error conditions, or output format. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more contextual guidance for effective tool invocation.

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 the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the 'id' parameter refers to a user. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or interactions.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('posts that a user has liked'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'getUserBookmarks' or 'getUserTimeline' by focusing on liked posts. However, it doesn't specify the resource type (tweets/posts) or explicitly differentiate from 'getLikingUsers' which retrieves users who liked a post rather than posts liked by a user.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'getUserBookmarks' (for bookmarked posts) or 'getUserTimeline' (for user's own posts), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication requirements or rate limits. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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