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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so this adds value on other axes: free of charge, no API key required, and it discloses that URLs and @handles in the task are resolved and filled, plus that credit cost is reported. It stops short of describing result freshness, limits on the resolution step, or failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the essential routing instruction ('Start here'), then packs the output contract, the fallback modes, and cost/auth facts into a single dense but waste-free pair of sentences. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully previews what comes back (endpoints, supplied params, missing params, credit cost, the call) and covers both input modes. Minor gaps remain around what 'the exact call' means operationally and how the resolution of URLs/@handles behaves on failure.

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 all three parameters, including that omitting 'task' lists platforms and that 'limit' defaults to 3. The description largely restates this rather than adding new parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 (find), resource (endpoint) and input form (a task in plain words), plus the scale of the catalog (3 of 646). The phrase 'Start here' and the fact that it returns 'the exact call' rather than results positions it clearly against executor siblings like socialcrawl_endpoint and socialcrawl_request.

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?

Gives clear usage context: when you have a plain-word task, when you have no task (lists platforms), and when you supply only a platform (lists that platform's endpoints). It does not, however, explicitly name the alternative tool to call once the endpoint is identified, nor state any when-not conditions.

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