lookmybio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-world, repeatable lookup. The description adds that results are bio page links, but says nothing about match behavior (partial vs exact), multiple matches, or an empty result.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, then the usage trigger. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, return type and usage context. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (no matches, multiple matches), which is minor but non-zero.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden; it does say the query accepts a username or a name. However, it omits matching semantics (substring, fuzzy, case sensitivity) and the 2-100 character limits are left entirely to the schema.

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 (find creators on lookmybio) plus the lookup keys (username or name) and the return content (bio page links). It separates itself from get_bio_page only indirectly, via the 'do not know their exact username' clause, rather than by naming the sibling.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: use when someone asks for a creator's link in bio, website or socials and the exact lookmybio username is unknown. That condition implicitly excludes the known-username case (get_bio_page), but no sibling is named and there is no guidance on ambiguous or zero-result searches.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds a meaningful detail — 'exactly as visitors see it', implying the public/unauthenticated rendering rather than an owner view — but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown usernames or rate 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the actionable sharing hint. No filler.

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 enumerates the returned content (name, bio, links, blocks), which is the key gap it needs to fill for a single-parameter read tool. It stops short of covering not-found/error behavior, which is the only remaining gap.

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% and the single parameter already documents that @ prefixes and page URLs are accepted. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Read') and resource ('a creator's lookmybio bio page') and enumerates the returned fields (name, bio, links, blocks). The resource is clearly distinct from the blog-oriented siblings (get_blog_post, list_blog_posts) and from find_creator, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'Link people to the page URL' implies the sharing use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus find_creator (creator lookup) or the blog tools. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return format ('as plain text') — important since there is no output schema — and by explaining the identifier concept. It does not cover failure behavior (not-found, private/unpublished blog), which keeps it below 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 the action, scope, and return format front-loaded, plus a parenthetical defining the key parameter. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool returns and how to identify the post, which is sufficient to invoke correctly. The remaining gap — behavior on missing or non-public posts — is minor but real.

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 50%: username is documented in the schema, but slug has no description there. The description compensates precisely, defining slug as 'the last part of the post URL', which is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs. Both required params are therefore covered between schema and description.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Read one post... blog') and scopes it to a single post retrieved by slug, which separates it in spirit from list_blog_posts. It never names a sibling outright, so an agent gets the singular-vs-list distinction only by inference from 'one post'.

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?

Usage is implied: call it when you already have a slug for a specific post. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer list_blog_posts or find_creator instead, nor what to do when the slug is unknown or the post is missing.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: results are filtered to published posts only, sorted newest first, and include links. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result volume.

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 compact sentences, zero filler, and the core operation and ordering are front-loaded before the alternative-tool pointer.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description tells the agent enough to call it and roughly what comes back ('with links'). The unexplained pagination parameter is the only real omission.

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 only 50% — username is documented, but 'page' has no description anywhere. The description mentions 'newest first' but never addresses pagination, page size, or the 100-page cap, so it does not compensate for the gap in the schema.

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 ('List the published posts on a creator's lookmybio blog') plus scope ('published'), ordering ('newest first'), and output nature ('with links'). It also names the sibling tool it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from get_blog_post without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get_blog_post to read a single post, implying this tool is for enumerating posts. That is a direct, unambiguous alternative-selection rule.

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