social_profile

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates that this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds useful context about the data fields returned and the platform scope, but it does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. Given the annotation covers the core safety profile, the description provides some additional value but not rich behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured. The opening sentence states the core purpose, the supported platforms are listed in one sentence, and the args list is compact with examples and defaults. Every sentence provides value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite not having an output schema, the description mentions the return data (followers, bio, recent posts/videos). It also covers the supported platforms and parameter behavior. The main gap is the undocumented 'config' parameter and lack of information about error handling or limitations. Overall, the description is reasonably complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains url with an example, enumerates valid platform values ('facebook', 'instagram', 'youtube', 'twitter'), and clarifies max_posts with its default and purpose. However, it does not mention the 'config' parameter at all, leaving a gap for one of the four schema parameters. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the schema for the key parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Scrape a social media profile' and lists the data obtained (followers, bio, recent posts/videos). It also explicitly names the supported platforms (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter/X), distinguishing it from generic scraping tools like content_scrape or js_scrape. This is clear and specific.

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 clearly states the supported platforms, giving the agent context for when to use this tool (i.e., when the URL belongs to one of these social media platforms). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks exclusionary guidance. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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