Social Preview (Open Graph & Twitter Card) Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the optional HEAD request to verify og:image, the detection of relative og:image URLs, and the return fields. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses concise bullet-like sections for args and returns, includes an example, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the core functionality (tag validation, image check, relative URL flag), the input parameters, and the return object. The presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the burden, and the example clarifies the use case. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters have descriptions, defaults, and enums). The description merely repeats the parameter names and defaults in a more compact form, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The example usage is a minor addition but not enough to raise the score above the baseline.

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 ('Validate') and identifies the resource (social preview tags for link-preview cards on X, LinkedIn, Facebook, Slack, WhatsApp, Discord). It lists the exact tag families (og:*, twitter:*) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like meta_tags_check by focusing specifically on social preview behavior.

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 gives a concrete example ('Why does my link preview look broken on LinkedIn?') that clearly signals when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is strong and unambiguous.

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