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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuine context beyond them: the sourcing method and the crucial fact that results are non-authoritative candidates requiring user confirmation before saving. It stops short of describing result volume, confidence, or failure behavior when no website exists.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The capability and its scope come first, and the confirm-then-save handoff is front-loaded as the closing imperative.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema discovery tool, the description covers what it does, how it does it, what it returns conceptually (candidates), and the required follow-up step. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing parameter guidance that would not apply.

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?

Specific verb (find) plus resource (social media profiles), with the exact platforms enumerated and the mechanism (website link harvesting + web search) named. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling set_social_profiles, which it references by name.

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?

Explicitly states the workflow: this tool returns candidates only, the user must confirm, and then set_social_profiles is the tool that persists them. The agent is routed to the correct sibling with the condition that selects it.

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