GetVidFB Downloader

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new information: the returned payload includes SD and HD MP4 with audio, separate video/audio tracks, thumbnail, title and duration. It does not disclose failure modes for non-public URLs or whether the links expire, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and resource before the output enumeration. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes what comes back, which is the main gap it needed to fill for a one-parameter extraction tool. The omission of error behavior for private or invalid URLs is a minor remaining gap given the simplicity of the tool.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the url field. The description adds marginal value by widening the accepted URL forms to reel, watch, share and photo post links, but adds no syntax, format or validation detail beyond the schema example.

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 specific verb (get direct download links) and a specific resource (public Facebook video, reel, watch link, share link, or photo post), then enumerates the returned formats. An agent can tell this apart from pinterest_download_links and tiktok_download_links purely by the platform named in the same sentence.

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 word 'public' establishes a real precondition and the enumerated URL types tell the agent what inputs qualify. There is no explicit statement of what happens with private or deleted content and no alternative tool is named, but the sibling tools cover different platforms so no routing ambiguity exists.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and open-world reach are covered; the description adds the 'public' restriction on content scope but says nothing about failure behavior for private pins, rate limits, or how many links come back.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the action and resource first and the URL-format detail parenthesized at the end; no filler whatsoever.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, this is nearly complete; the only soft gap is that with no output schema, the description does not hint at the shape of the returned links (e.g. per-media entries).

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by expanding accepted input beyond the schema's single pin.it example to include full pinterest.com URLs and Idea Pin URLs.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get download links for the videos, images and GIFs') and bounds the scope to public Pinterest pins and Idea Pins, which cleanly separates it from the facebook_download_links and tiktok_download_links siblings by platform and media type.

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 word 'public' signals the key precondition and the accepted URL forms (pinterest.com or pin.it) tell the agent what input qualifies; it does not explicitly state that private/authenticated pins will fail or when to prefer a sibling, though the platform naming makes that obvious.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds meaningful context by specifying that the links are watermark-free, come in two resolutions, and bundle auxiliary assets (audio, cover, metadata). It stops short of describing failure behavior for non-public or removed videos, which matters for an open-world fetch.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the returned assets enumerated in a compact list. There is no filler and nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by listing the fields produced. It is only slightly short of complete because it does not describe the response container or how the two resolutions are surfaced.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the url and even supplies an example. The description only reinforces that the URL must point at a public video, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and platform-scoped resource ('Get no-watermark MP4 links ... for a public TikTok video') and enumerates exactly what comes back (HD/SD MP4, music track, cover image, title, author). The TikTok naming alone separates it from facebook_download_links and pinterest_download_links without opening any schema.

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 word 'public' implies a precondition (the target video must be publicly accessible), which is useful selection context. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling download tools or what to do for private/deleted posts, leaving usage to inference.

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