Describe endpoints

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable context beyond them: it is free and instant, makes no API call, and consumes no credits. It does not mention rate limits or response shape, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the tool's purpose and cost profile, then enumerates the three argument modes in a single compact sentence. Every clause carries useful information with no filler.

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 zero-required-parameter discovery tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and all argument modes. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and understand the expected drill-down behavior.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds scope semantics beyond the schema by explaining the progressive argument combinations and that endpoint can substitute for resource. It does not clarify argument precedence when both resource and endpoint are supplied.

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: look up what SocialScrape can fetch, including parameters, allowed values, price, and example arguments. This is clearly distinct from action tools like call_endpoint or search, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 clear progressive usage guidance: no arguments lists platforms; with platform lists resources; with platform and resource or endpoint returns full parameter details. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or sibling routing, such as telling the agent to use call_endpoint instead once an endpoint is chosen.

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