Social Handle Availability

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds value by specifying which platforms are checked (GitHub, Twitter/X, TikTok, LinkedIn, Instagram), which isn't in the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and lists platforms without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple read-only check tool with good annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., availability status per platform), leaving a gap in completeness for agent usage.

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% for the single parameter 'brand_name', with the schema providing format constraints (e.g., pattern, length). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond implying the brand name is used for checking handles. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking social media handle availability across five specific platforms (GitHub, Twitter/X, TikTok, LinkedIn, Instagram). It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('social media handle availability'), but doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'brandomica_check_all' or 'brandomica_batch_check' which might offer similar functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'brandomica_check_all' (which might check more platforms) or 'brandomica_batch_check' (which might handle multiple names), nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints beyond the implied brand name input.

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