Get SocialCrawl Documentation

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by disclosing that no API key is required and by distinguishing output size between 'overview' (compact) and 'full' (comprehensive). This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and efficiently lists topics and auth requirements. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple documentation-retrieval tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers available topics, the default behavior implied by the schema, and the auth requirement, leaving no significant gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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% and already lists all allowed topics including the platform slug example. The description repeats this information without adding new semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 retrieves SocialCrawl API documentation, with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates valid topics and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_platforms and request by focusing on documentation retrieval.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when API documentation is needed) and mentions that no API key is required, which aids selection. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though the sibling names make the differentiation apparent.

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