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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: credit consumption and cache-vs-live resolution with the cached flag. However, the pricing statements are internally inconsistent ("at least 10 Nexscope credits" versus "1 credit per request"), which undermines confidence in the cost model the agent is supposed to rely on.

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 first two sentences are well front-loaded and dense with return-value detail. But the middle contains pasted vendor boilerplate ("Komi Komi page API View Pricing", the duplicated "Komi page 1 credit per request") and then repeats the schema's cache explanation word for word, including a raw markdown link. Several sentences do not earn their place.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does it well, listing profile fields, social account keys, and the link/product object structure including price and currency. Cost and caching semantics are covered. The remaining gap is the contradictory credit figures, which leave the true cost of a call ambiguous.

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%, so both `url` and the `cache_max_age` enum are already fully documented, and the description merely repeats the cache text verbatim. It adds no syntax or format guidance for the URL beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Scrapes a Komi page by URL") and enumerates the extracted entities: creator profile, social links, and featured content. It clearly separates this from generic page-scraping tools, though it never names the nearest siblings (social_linktree, social_linkbio, social_linkme), so an agent must infer the distinction from the platform name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The description tells the agent what it will get but not why to pick this over social_linktree or social_linkbio for a given URL, leaving routing entirely to the URL's domain. The only conditional guidance concerns caching cost, not tool selection.

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