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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses read-only/free/no-api_key behavior, the max-batch limit, the skipped status for unverifiable IG/FB items, and why a user-supplied proxy is needed. It does not enumerate every possible per-item status or edge case, but the main runtime caveats are clearly communicated.

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 English text is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by practical caveats and routing guidance. The bilingual Vietnamese section duplicates the English content, which is not strictly necessary for the agent and prevents a perfect score, but it remains compact and targeted.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers input types, supported platforms, batch size, proxy behavior, free access, expected result shape, and alternative tools — everything an agent needs to select and call this tool correctly.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that Facebook UIDs are numeric, restating the 20-item limit, and linking the proxy parameter to unverifiable IG/FB items. It doesn't add much about the platform parameter, but it doesn't need to since the schema already documents the default.

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 concrete action and resource: bulk live/dead checking for many accounts, listing supported platforms, the 20-item cap, and output shape. It also names the sibling tools it should be preferred over, so an agent can differentiate it from check_live_facebook and deep_inspect without opening their schemas.

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?

Contains explicit 'WHEN TO USE' guidance (list of 2-20 accounts, or any non-Facebook platform) and 'PREFER INSTEAD' guidance (check_live_facebook for a single Facebook UID, deep_inspect for one detailed profile). This leaves no ambiguity about which tool to choose.

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