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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so well by clarifying that only links are returned, not actions like following accounts or sending messages, and adds the qualifier 'verified.' It does not describe output structure, but for a zero-parameter, read-only link retrieval this is largely sufficient.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and enumerates the platforms, and the second adds a brief, valuable behavioral caveat without redundancy.

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 there are zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only responsibility, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what is returned, for whom, and which platforms are included. The explicit 'links only' caveat closes the remaining realistic misuse.

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 are no parameters, so the schema provides full coverage by definition. The description adds no param-level semantics because none are needed; the baseline of 4 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('verified public profile links for Gabriel') and enumerates the exact platforms covered. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bio or get_share_links.

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 clearly scopes the tool to returning links and explicitly states what it does not do ('does not follow accounts or send messages'), which prevents misuse. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or state a direct when-to-use condition, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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