social_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: it states the return payload includes outcome, normalized output, raw provider data, and _meta.tried, and it warns that provider API charges are billed to the user's provider account. This is meaningful behavior beyond what the schema alone reveals. It could go further on auth or fallback behavior, but the default waterfall is at least hinted at by the vendor-pinning instruction.

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 compact and efficiently front-loaded: the purpose comes first, followed by input modes, provider control, and return/billing notes. Every sentence earns its place, though the first sentence is slightly long and could be tightened.

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 tool with no required parameters and a rich output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: what it returns, how to identify a target, how to control the vendor, and cost implications. It does not mention precedence when both profile_url and platform+handle are supplied, but that is a minor gap given the schema and output schema context.

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, but the description adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters: profile_url OR platform+handle are alternative ways to identify the target, and vendor pins the provider. This usage-level guidance goes beyond the individual property descriptions.

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 identifies what the tool does: it returns one person's public profile across many specified platforms, and explains the two input modes. It is specific enough to separate it from broader people_search or people_enrich tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 gives practical invocation guidance: provide a profile URL, or a platform and handle, and optionally use vendor to pin a provider. However, it never says when to choose this tool over siblings like people_search or people_identity_resolve, so the usage context is more implied than explicit.

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