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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: only public signed-out data, billing per call, no charge when no data returns, and the need for a free SnoopScan key. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but it substantially improves behavioral clarity.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concrete example, discovery guidance, and key operational caveats. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy. The final key requirement is compactly stated.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the important invocation context: public data scope, billing, key requirement, and endpoint discovery via `socialEndpoints`. The main remaining gap is that valid platform and endpoint values are not summarized directly, though the pointer to `socialEndpoints` mitigates this.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example showing `platform`, `endpoint`, and a `params` object, and it points to `socialEndpoints` for valid inputs. However, it does not document valid platform values or endpoint-specific parameter meanings directly, leaving part of the parameter semantics delegated.

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 specifies that this tool returns structured social-platform data such as profiles, posts, videos, comments, transcripts, and search, and contrasts it with page-style scraping. It also points to the `socialEndpoints` sibling for endpoint discovery, which helps distinguish its role. The purpose is clear, though it is framed as a general dispatcher rather than a single fixed operation.

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 tells the agent to call `socialEndpoints` for the full endpoint list and each endpoint's inputs, and it states that only public signed-out data is available. It also notes billing and key requirements, which are useful invocation conditions. It does not explicitly compare this tool with other data-access siblings such as `search` or `scrape`, so it falls short of full when-to-use guidance.

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