UpGrow Instagram Growth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the content scope (guarantees, support contacts, countries served), which is real context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about staleness, localization, or caching behavior. With annotations carrying the read-only signal, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the topic list is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the comma-separated enumeration is slightly list-like rather than leading with the concrete outcome an agent gets.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the definition covers enough to call it correctly. The only missing piece is explicit routing guidance against the five sibling tools, which is a usage concern rather than a completeness failure of the operation itself.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool; the schema is fully closed (additionalProperties false).

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 enumerates the content covered (service overview, getting started, guarantees, support contacts, countries served), which tells an agent what kind of information comes back, but it never states a verb+resource like 'returns UpGrow company facts'. The name and title supply the verb, so the description alone reads as a list of topics rather than a definition of the 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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be used instead of the siblings (get_signup_link, list_plans, list_products, list_free_tools, search_blog). An agent can infer it is the general orientation/company-info endpoint, but the definition never says 'use this first for onboarding questions' or excludes anything.

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 establish that this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true) with no external side effects implied by openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the result covers sign-up/setup plus pricing and shop pages, which is useful context about scope, but it discloses nothing about caching, stability of the URL, or whether links are environment-specific.

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 compact sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The closing enumeration of secondary pages is terse to the point of mild ambiguity about what is actually returned.

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 parameters, a full output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what is needed to select and call the tool. The only gap is whether the pricing/shop pages come back as part of the same response, but the output schema can resolve that.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Get") with a specific resource ("the link where a user starts with UpGrow"), so an agent can tell this apart from list_plans or list_products. The trailing clause "plus the pricing and shop pages" slightly muddies whether one link or several are returned, keeping it short of a 5.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the right tool when a user needs a sign-up or setup URL. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to siblings like list_plans even though they overlap on pricing information.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: no sign-up or password is needed, telling the agent it can call this without authentication or session setup. Return values are covered by the output schema, so no gap there.

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 with zero filler: the first states what is returned and in what form, the second removes a likely agent hesitation about credentials. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, this is complete. The agent knows what it gets, in what shape, and that no authentication is involved.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. The description correctly signals there is no filtering or input required, which matches the empty 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 (list) and resource (free UpGrow Instagram tools) and specifies the payload shape, a one-line description and link per item. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_plans or list_products, so an agent must infer from the names alone that this returns free tools rather than paid plans.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery entry point for free tools, and that no credentials are required. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_plans/list_products guidance, and no stated conditions or exclusions.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results include first-month price, inclusions, and a sign-up link — all return-value detail — without disclosing ordering, static vs. live pricing, or any caveats about the pricing being a first-month promotional figure.

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 resource named first and the payload spelled out, with no filler or repetition. Every clause carries information.

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 parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering read-only/no-network behavior, the description is close to sufficient. The only meaningful omission is guidance on when to prefer this over get_signup_link or list_products, since the sign-up link content overlaps with a sibling.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter confusion is possible with an empty 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 UpGrow growth plans) and even enumerates the plan tiers, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_products or get_signup_link, even though the returned sign-up link overlaps with get_signup_link's apparent territory.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for questions about pricing tiers or plan contents. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing versus list_products, list_free_tools, or get_signup_link, so the agent must guess if a sign-up link question should go here or to get_signup_link.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds what data is bundled per product (starting prices, tiers, product page links) and the platform coverage, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size for a catalog listing.

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 scope, no filler. The final 'No subscription' fragment earns its place as a disambiguator against the plan-listing siblings.

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 read-only catalog tool with one optional parameter and an output schema that documents return shape, the description is nearly sufficient. Only minor gaps remain (ordering/pagination behavior), which is acceptable at this complexity level.

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 100% and the single optional platform parameter has an explicit enum, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only echoes the platform set (Instagram and TikTok) and adds no format or default guidance beyond that.

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 names a specific verb (List) and resource (one-time UpGrow shop products) and scopes it precisely to followers, likes, views and comments for Instagram and TikTok. The phrase 'one-time' plus 'No subscription' separates it from list_plans and list_free_tools without the agent needing to open 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?

The 'one-time ... No subscription' framing implies the boundary against subscription-plan tools, but the description never names a sibling alternative or states an explicit when-to-use/when-not condition. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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 and openWorldHint=true, so safety and openness are covered. The description adds the return shape (titles, links, descriptions), which is useful, but says nothing about ranking, pagination, or empty-result behavior beyond what the schema and output schema provide.

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 no filler; the verb, resource, scope, and return fields all arrive in one pass and every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is nearly sufficient for this simple two-parameter search. It could be slightly more complete by noting the default/max result count or the read-only nature, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, with both q (2-100 chars) and limit (1-10, default 5) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, matching, or query-format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (Search) and resource (UpGrow blog posts) plus the topical scope (Instagram growth) and the fields returned (titles, links, descriptions). It is clearly distinct from all siblings (facts, signup link, free tools, plans, products), though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 only implied — 'Search UpGrow blog posts' tells the agent this is for finding blog content, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over the sibling tools or any prerequisite/preclusion. An agent can infer the context but is given no routing rule.

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