socials_x_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation and discloses the prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state that this is a safe, non-destructive read, nor does it mention potential error conditions or authentication requirements. The list of returned fields adds value but leaves some ambiguity (e.g., 'follow relationship').

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 two concise sentences: the first states the action and prerequisite, the second enumerates the return fields. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers the prerequisite, the extraction action, and all major returned fields. However, without an output schema, it could clarify the return format and the meaning of 'follow relationship' or error scenarios. It is complete for its simplicity but not exhaustive.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema covers them all, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces the only relevant context (the need to be on a profile URL) without needing to describe parameter syntax. This is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and clearly identifies the resource ('an X (Twitter) profile page'). It also lists the precise fields returned (name, handle, bio, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like socials_linkedin_profile or socials_get_page_content.

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 states an explicit prerequisite: 'Must navigate to a profile URL first.' This provides clear context on when the tool is usable. However, it does not exclude alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, though the prerequisite implies that it should be used after navigating to a profile page.

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