sociallinks.dev

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the balance belongs to the account behind the API key and notes that the call is 'Free', which is useful cost context. It does not explain what the response contains, such as a numeric value or units.

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 short and front-loads the key information about what balance is being checked. The fragment 'Free.' is mildly ambiguous and adds little clarity, but there is no wasted text.

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 with read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate. Because there is no output schema, the description could have stated what the tool returns, such as a number or formatted amount. It also does not define the unit of 'credits'.

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 no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies here.

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 resource being read: the credit balance tied to the API key. It does not use an explicit verb, and 'Free' is ambiguous, but the purpose is still easy to infer. The sibling tools perform unrelated operations, so the tool is naturally distinct without explicit differentiation.

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 no guidance about when to call this tool, when to avoid it, or what alternatives exist. For a simple zero-parameter balance check, the use case is fairly obvious. However, it says nothing about prerequisites, such as whether a valid API key must already be configured.

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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are partial ("found so far") — but says nothing about whether completion is signalled, whether polling is expected, or what happens to results after completion.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, and the key qualifier ("started with start_batch") is placed where it is read first. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description should characterize the return shape — progress fields, row format, how completion or failure is indicated. It only hints at this with "progress and the rows found so far," leaving the agent to discover the response structure by calling it.

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 100% and the single id parameter is already documented as "The batch id from start_batch." The description reinforces that provenance but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond the 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?

The description names the resource (a batch) and what is returned (progress and rows found so far), which is enough to tell it apart from start_batch and the lookup/balance siblings. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous.

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 states the prerequisite clearly — the batch must have been created by start_batch, and the id comes from there. It does not say when to call it versus alternatives, how often to poll, or what to do once the batch finishes, so usage is only implied.

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 declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the response carries a per-account verdict, net confidence on a 0–1 scale and evidence, and the call costs 1 credit only when at least one account is found. That cost conditionality effectively explains why the tool is not marked read-only, which is valuable context 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and input, followed by return shape and pricing. Every clause carries information: platforms, output fields, confidence range, and billing rule. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing the return value (creator, accounts with verdicts, confidence, evidence, websites) and adds the credit model. Minor omissions remain: no mention of behavior on unsupported or malformed URLs, empty-result shape, or authentication/credit requirements. For a one-parameter lookup this is close to complete.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states it must be a profile page and not a post, reel, short or video. The description's only addition is enumerating the supported platforms (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X), which is marginal. Baseline 3 applies since 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find a creator's accounts') plus the exact input form (one Instagram, TikTok, YouTube or X profile URL). The output scope is also named (accounts, verdict, net confidence, evidence, websites), so an agent knows both what goes in and what comes out. No sibling (check_balance, get_batch, start_batch) overlaps in purpose, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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 implied rather than stated: the phrase 'from one Instagram, TikTok, YouTube or X profile URL' tells the agent the acceptable input situation, and the schema reinforces that posts/reels/shorts/videos are out of scope. There is no explicit when-to-use versus an alternative and no statement of prerequisites such as needing credit balance. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 the mutation/open-world/non-idempotent profile, so the safety story is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot: asynchronous execution, the returned handle, and the per-row billing rule ("charged only if it finds accounts"). It says nothing about failure handling, per-row errors, or whether re-submitting the same URLs double-charges.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: capability and limit first, the follow-up step second, cost model last. Every sentence carries information the agent needs before invoking.

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 two-parameter async submission tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: the input shape, that a batch id comes back, how to retrieve results, and the billing implication. Only the partial-failure and retry/idempotency story 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?

The schema already documents both parameters, including the restriction that URLs must be profile pages rather than posts or reels. The description's "up to 500" restates maxItems and mentions profile URLs without adding format or batching semantics, so it is roughly a baseline pass-through rather than compensating for the 50% coverage.

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 ("Queue ... profile URLs to look up in the background") plus the scale limit of 500, which distinguishes it from the single-record sibling lookup_creator and the polling sibling get_batch. An agent can tell immediately this is the bulk-submission entry point.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: "poll it with get_batch" tells the agent this call only enqueues and does not return results. The bulk framing implicitly contrasts with lookup_creator, but it never says when NOT to batch (e.g. one or two URLs) or what happens on partial failure.

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