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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does surface the important side effect that uncheckable IG/FB entries are auto-moved to 'skipped' and that a fresh proxy is honored per request. It also tells the agent the output includes per-item status plus a summary. It doesn't discuss rate limits or auth, but the most unusual behavior is revealed.

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 content is useful but duplicated across English and Vietnamese, so the same message is expressed twice. The proxy/skipped behavior is the only truly new addition beyond the schema; the rest could be tightened without loss for an agent.

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 batch health-check tool with no output schema, the description gives a workable model: input formats, max batch, platform choices, proxy behavior, and return summary. Gaps like exact response fields and error handling are minor given the lack of an output schema.

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?

Since the schema already documents all 3 parameters at 100% coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the consequence of omitting proxy (auto-skip on blocked IP) and reinforcing the 20-item cap, which helps an agent craft a valid request.

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 identifies a bulk live/dead check operation, names the supported platforms (Facebook UIDs, Instagram/Telegram/TikTok usernames), and sets a 20-item limit. The 'HÀNG LOẠT' emphasis and the name distinguish it from the single-check sibling check_live_facebook.

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?

It states this tool is for many accounts at once and gives a concrete conditional rule: for IG/FB, if the server IP is blocked, items are auto-skipped unless a proxy is provided. It doesn't explicitly route single checks to the sibling tool, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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