business_discovery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It declares read-only behavior, public profile access, professional-account restriction, and clarifies how with_media and media_limit affect the response. It does not discuss rate limits or auth edge cases, but this is adequate for a read-only lookup edge.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the core capability, the read-only research framing, and the professional-account/media-limit constraints. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure does not need to be spelled out. The description captures the essential behavior, constraints, and parameter effects. The main remaining gap is the account parameter and a more explicit pointer to sibling tools for self-account lookups.

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 0%, so the description is the main source of parameter meaning. It explains username as the lookup key and clarifies with_media and media_limit as a pair. However, the account parameter is never mentioned, leaving its optional/null default semantics unexplained.

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-plus-resource statement: it returns a public profile and optionally recent media for any business/creator account by username. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools aimed at one's own account or media, such as get_profile or list_media.

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 frames the tool as read-only competitor/prospect research and states the hard constraint that it only works for Professional accounts, not personal accounts. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the professional/any-account scope gives a clear usage criterion.

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