business_discovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only and only works for Professional accounts, which are key behavioral facts. It also describes the effect of the with_media and media_limit parameters. However, it omits details like error handling (e.g., if username is not found or account is not professional), rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: main functionality, read-only/account type context, and parameter behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and wastes no words.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description provides good coverage of core behavior, usage context, and key parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it does not address edge cases or the purpose of the 'account' parameter, which could confuse an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains username (by mentioning 'by username'), with_media (pulls up recent posts), and media_limit (pulls up to that many posts). However, the 'account' parameter (optional, default null) is not explained, leaving its purpose unclear. Overall, partial coverage with some missing info.

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 it retrieves public profile and optionally recent media for any business/creator account by username, and explicitly distinguishes it from personal accounts. It also mentions 'read-only competitor/prospect research,' which defines its purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_profile (personal accounts) and list_media (which may lack business focus).

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 specifies when to use the tool ('competitor/prospect research') and the constraint that it only works for Professional accounts, not personal. This provides clear context and implies it should not be used for personal accounts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among siblings (e.g., get_profile for personal profiles), which slightly reduces clarity.

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