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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful output context (handles, icon keys, citation-backed metadata) but says nothing about how the optional network/email filters affect results or about response shape limits.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading the return content. It is appropriately sized but leaves necessary detail unstated rather than being verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the three input parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, and there is no usage guidance. For a tool whose parameters meaningfully change results, the description is too thin to guide correct 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 0% across three parameters (networks, includeEmail, includeProfileReferences), and the description mentions none of them. An agent learns the output fields but not what the inputs control, how to restrict networks, or what the include toggles suppress.

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?

States a clear verb (returns) and resource (social profile links), and enumerates what the response contains: handles, icon keys, and citation-backed metadata. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_contact_email or get_brand_kit, though it does not explicitly contrast with any of them.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_contact_email or get_professional_profile, and no indication of when not to use it. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and one-sentence purpose.

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