get_social_media_placement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It makes clear this is a lookup that returns reference geometry rather than mutating anything, but it never states that it is read-only/non-destructive, nor does it describe behavior for invalid ids, units on source dimensions, or whether the optional plan computation changes the response shape.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary returned fields, followed by the optional-parameter behavior. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return values, and it does so concretely (dimensions, ratio, insets in px, usable box, doc URL). It is only mildly incomplete on error/unknown-id behavior and on whether the optional plan fields are additive or replace the base fields.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by saying the two source dimensions are meant to be passed together to produce 'crop and letterbox plans' — the schema only vaguely mentions 'crop/pad fit' per-parameter, so the pairing and the plan output are new information.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and a precise resource (a single social media placement), then enumerates the exact fields returned: frame dimensions, aspect ratio, safe-area insets in px, usable box, and doc URL. The example IDs and the singular scope clearly separate it from list_social_media_placements.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition for the optional parameters: passing sourceWidth and sourceHeight yields crop and letterbox plans. It does not say how to discover a valid id (presumably via the list sibling) or what happens for unknown ids, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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