namesniper_check_social

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It discloses the JSON return format, per-platform status/confidence scores, rate limits, free vs. paid key behavior, and accuracy caveats for Instagram, TikTok, and X/Twitter. This goes well beyond a simple 'check' statement.

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 description is three dense sentences that front-load the purpose, then cover output format and usage context. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return structure, alternative tool links, rate-limiting, authentication tiers, and accuracy expectations, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 does not add extra detail about the 'name' or 'platforms' parameters beyond what the schema already states; it focuses on tool behavior, not parameter semantics.

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: 'Check username availability across the major social platforms concurrently.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from namesniper_check for domain-only needs and references namesniper_watch, making the tool's scope clear relative to siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Narrower than namesniper_check when domains are not needed.' It also provides next-step guidance, suggesting namesniper_watch if a handle is taken, aiding in tool selection.

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