social_links_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the core behavior (finding social links) and input types, but does not disclose output format, potential limitations, or any side effects. For a read-only search operation, it is minimally adequate but lacks richer context.

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 concise and front-loaded: it opens with the tool's purpose, then lists the operation in a clear, bulleted format. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with a single operation, and the description sufficiently covers how to invoke it. However, since there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned the return format or error conditions. Overall, it is nearly complete for basic usage but leaves some ambiguity about response details.

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 input schema describes 'operation' and a generic 'args' object, but the actual parameter 'query' is only documented in the tool description. The description adds essential meaning by specifying the operation name and required query parameter, compensating for the schema's generic nested object.

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 finds social media profile links and lists specific platforms (Instagram, LinkedIn, X, etc.) for a query, domain, or brand. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like email_search or website_contacts_scraper.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or alternative tools mentioned. The description only explains what the tool does and how to invoke it, not when it is the preferred choice.

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