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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds two things annotations don't carry: the calls are free and a free SnoopScan key is required. That auth/cost context is exactly the kind of added value expected. It stops short of describing pagination 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no filler. The trailing whitespace and abrupt 'Free.' fragment are minor structural blemishes but the content is tight.

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-value detail is not required, and the description covers the auth prerequisite and cost. The only real gap is the ambiguous role of the `platform` parameter, which leaves an agent unsure how to use the sole input.

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% and the single `platform` parameter is undocumented, so the description must compensate. It lists the available platform values (YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, Facebook, Threads, Pinterest), which helps an agent pick a value, but never states whether the parameter filters the listing or whether omitting it returns all endpoints.

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 social endpoints') and explicitly scopes it to what the sibling `social` can call. It also enumerates the per-entry fields (platform, name, return value, inputs, price), so an agent knows exactly what this discovery tool yields versus the sibling that executes calls.

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 reference to `social` implies this is the discovery step before invoking an endpoint, but there is no explicit 'call this before social' instruction and no when-not guidance. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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