social_community_forum_entries_scraper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about scraping limits, rate limits, freshness/caching of data, cost, or whether results are bounded by maxEntriesPerTopic defaults. That it is a scraper implies live network fetching and possible latency/partial-result behavior, none of which is 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is driven by under-specification rather than disciplined scoping.

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 scraping tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what source is scraped, what the returned fields look like, and any limits or failure modes. It instead gives only a list of data categories, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape or the scraping target.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of trending topics and entries loosely maps to includeTrending and maxEntriesPerTopic but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond that. 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?

The description names a clear verb ("Extract") and concrete outputs (trending topics, user entries, favorite counts, sentiment), which is more specific than the name alone. However, it never identifies which community/forum is being scraped, so the actual target resource is left ambiguous even though the tool name implies a forum. Siblings are all unrelated domains, so no differentiation is needed, but the missing source leaves the purpose only partially resolved.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. No prerequisites, no mention of whether it requires a forum identifier or works against a fixed default source. The agent gets a capability statement and nothing about selection or context.

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