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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral facts 'Free', 'up to 25 response fields', and it hints at latency/timeout reporting. It does not say whether results are cached or versioned, and it does not disclose error behavior. Some added value, but not rich.

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 opening clause is a comma-separated run-on list of nine return items ('purpose, params, where the rows are and up to 25 response fields, cost rule, paging, latency, timeout, next endpoints and a sample link') before any action is named. The second and third sentences are fragments with no verb ('id (or platform+resource, path), a platform slug ... Free.'). Not front-loaded and hard to parse.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description tries to cover contract contents, cost ('Free'), paging, latency, and routing. The gaps are the missing 'when to use vs alternatives' framing and the lack of a stated behavior for guide-topic ids versus endpoint ids. Adequate, but leaves the agent to infer the primary use case.

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%, so the schema already documents `id` (platform/resource, platform slug, or guide topic), `page`, and `method`. The description's sentence 'id (or platform+resource, path), a platform slug (its endpoints) or a guide topic' largely restates the schema's own enum of id forms. Baseline 3 applies where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 says it returns 'one endpoint's purpose, params, where the rows are and up to 25 response fields, cost rule, paging, latency, timeout, next endpoints and a sample link' – that is a detailed inventory of return contents, but it never states the core verb+resource in a first-clause way. An agent must infer from the name and the phrase 'Read before calling' that this is a documentation/contract lookup tool rather than an API caller. The sibling `socialcrawl_estimate` and `socialcrawl_collect` are not differentiated.

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?

'Read before calling' gives one contextual cue (use this before invoking a real endpoint) but does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use. There is no explicit routing against `socialcrawl_estimate` (cost) or `socialcrawl_request` (making the call). Minimal viable – a hint, not a rule.

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