Call any endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious commercial fact that pricing matches the platform tools and that behaviour is identical. It omits what happens on an unknown endpoint id or invalid params, and says nothing about response shape or size for the 183 endpoints.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability, equivalence/pricing, then usage conditions with a discovery pointer. Zero filler and the identification example is front-loaded.

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 free-form passthrough over 183 heterogeneous endpoints with no output schema, the essential missing piece is how to discover valid ids and per-endpoint params, and the description supplies that by naming `describe`. What is left out, response format and invalid-id behaviour, is secondary for a generic dispatcher but not nothing.

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% and the schema already explains both `endpoint` (with the same `apple_music.artist` example) and `params` (as in describe's example arguments). The description largely restates that and points to `describe` for enumeration, which is mildly useful routing but not new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Run any SocialScrape data endpoint by its id') and immediately grounds it with a concrete id example (`apple_music.artist`). It also positions itself against the per-platform siblings by noting it shares their behaviour and price, so an agent can tell it is the generic escape hatch rather than a duplicate.

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 two explicit trigger conditions: when the id is already known, and when only core tools are enabled. It also points at `describe` as the discovery alternative when the id is not known. It stops short of stating a preference rule versus calling the typed platform tools directly, which would have made it a 5.

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