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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral details: deactivated profiles are included with frozen stats, duplicate rows for handle changes, and the cost of 1 credit per call. These go beyond the annotations.

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 four sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main action, then returns, use cases, edge cases, and cost. Every sentence adds value and the structure is logical.

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 no output schema, the description explains return content (metadata, follower counts, average performance stats). It covers edge cases and cost. Only pagination is implicit, but this does not detract from overall completeness.

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 only 25% (only query has a description). The description adds meaning for query ('handle or name') and platforms ('filtered by platform'), but does not explain page/pageSize. With low coverage, it partially compensates but leaves pagination unaddressed.

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 states 'Search tracked social media profiles by handle or name, filtered by platform' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_profile (single profile) and list_tracked_profiles by emphasizing search and handle resolution.

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 explicitly provides use cases: 'resolve a handle to a profile id before fetching stats or posts' and 'discover creators in the database'. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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