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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: found:true returns the postId, found:false distinguishes untracked profile vs. just this post, and each call costs 1 credit. It also warns about short-link expansion, adding context the annotations alone do not 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?

The description is dense but well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences add conditional guidance and edge-case handling. Every sentence earns its place, including the cost note, with no redundant 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 compensates by explaining the found:true/found:false result semantics and how the returned postId connects to get_post, request_transcript, download_post_media, and remix_post. It also covers untracked-profile handling, URL expansion, and cost, making it fully adequate for agent invocation.

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?

Although the schema already describes the url parameter with 100% coverage, the tool description adds substantial meaning by enumerating supported platforms (TikTok, Instagram, YouTube) and explicitly instructing that short links must be expanded. This goes well beyond the schema's one-line 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: it takes a public post URL and resolves it to the tracked post, positioning it as the entry point for link-based input. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that remix_post accepts untracked URLs directly and can skip this lookup.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use when the input is a link. It also names alternatives like crawl_profile for untracked profiles and remix_post for direct ingestion, plus a prerequisite that short links must be expanded to canonical URLs first.

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