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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states read-only, public data only, free/no api_key, best-effort behavior, and the 'needs_proxy' failure mode with proxy remedy. It does not mention timeout or malformed-input outcomes, hence not a perfect 5.

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 core information is front-loaded and dense, with only one unnecessary piece: the final Vietnamese sentence recaps the English content. Otherwise every sentence either defines scope, states behavior, or routes the agent to a sibling.

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?

The description is complete enough for selecting and invoking the tool: it covers platforms, output data categories, proxy behavior, and alternatives. With no output schema, an explicit JSON response shape would strengthen it, but it already tells the agent what data to expect per platform.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema—the schema already documents proxy syntax, full-URL handles, and the platform enum—though it does emphasize 'pass your own proxy' for IG/FB.

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: 'Deep profile lookup for ONE social account' and enumerates the exact data per platform. It also names sibling tools and what they are not, so there is no ambiguity about scope.

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 provides explicit routing: 'WHEN TO USE: you want rich detail about one profile' and 'PREFER INSTEAD: check_health_bulk ... check_live_facebook ...', making the choice among siblings fully explicit.

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