getLikingUsers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (implied by the pagination_token parameter but not explained), or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, immediately conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or any error conditions. While the schema covers parameters well, the lack of behavioral context and output information leaves the agent with significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the format of 'expansions' or 'tweet.fields' beyond their schema descriptions). This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource 'users who liked a specific post', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'getLikedTweets' or 'getUserBookmarks' that also retrieve user-related data, missing an opportunity for explicit differentiation.

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. With sibling tools like 'getLikedTweets' (which retrieves tweets liked by a user) and 'getUserBookmarks' (which retrieves bookmarked posts), there's no indication of the specific context or prerequisites for selecting 'getLikingUsers' over these other user-data retrieval tools.

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