Fetch social data

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it consumes credits, enforces an allowlist that rejects other paths, and returns raw provider JSON that is large and messy. That is materially useful disclosure for a mutation-adjacent, credit-spending call.

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-loaded with the purpose and example, with the prefer-alternatives warning positioned after the core statement. The long enumeration of platform families is density rather than filler, since it communicates the allowlist scope, though it is the longest part of the block and pushes the WARNING late.

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 generic passthrough with a 2-param schema, an allowlist constraint, and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: scope, allowlist, param-name variability, cost, and return-format expectations. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 documents path and params, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by noting that param names vary per endpoint (handle for profiles, query for keyword searches, subreddit for Reddit) and gives example shapes, which is genuine added meaning.

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 precise verb and resource — 'Generic escape hatch for any ALLOWLISTED long-tail social/web endpoint' — and explicitly frames it against the dedicated search_* siblings. An agent knows exactly what class of call this performs without opening the schema.

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?

It states when to use it (endpoints the dedicated search_* tools don't cover), when not to (a WARNING says prefer the dedicated search_* tools because output is large/messy), and gives a concrete invocation example. Routing guidance is explicit rather than inferred.

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