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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior — credit cost, cache-vs-live-scrape semantics, and the warning that repeated requests may re-purchase data — but it undermines itself by stating 'at least 10 Nexscope credits' and then '1 credit per request' in the same paragraph, leaving the agent unsure of the real cost.

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 useful field enumeration is front-loaded, but the body then drags in pasted marketing copy ('Linkme Profile API View Pricing Get Linkme profile info by URL 1 credit per request'), a duplicated markdown documentation link, and the entire caching explanation repeated from the schema. The contradictory credit figures are a direct product of this unedited concatenation.

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 burden of describing returns and does so well, naming the concrete fields plus the nested infoLinks and webLinks structure. Cost and caching are also covered, which matters for a paid scraping call; only the internal credit inconsistency and the missing sibling differentiation leave gaps.

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 parameters are already documented, and the description mostly restates them. The 'cache_max_age' paragraph is copied verbatim from the schema, adding no meaning, and the 'url' parameter is never given a format example or an indication of which Linkme URL forms are accepted.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves a Linkme profile by URL') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what the call produces. It never distinguishes this from the near-identical siblings social_linkbio and social_linktree, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 only implied: supply a profile URL to get that profile. There is no statement of when to prefer this over social_linktree or social_linkbio, no prerequisites, and no failure conditions. The caching note gives an operational hint about cost trade-offs but is not a when-to-use rule.

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