Fetch social data

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent (fetching data is read-only). Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that it returns RAW provider JSON — large and messy — and that it spends credits. These are meaningful behavioral traits that help the agent anticipate side effects and output format without contradicting any annotation.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, example, allowlisted platforms, parameter naming conventions, the warning about raw output, and the credit cost. The most important info is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool's open-ended nature (generic endpoint, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to decide whether to use it and how to invoke it. It lists the platform families, explains the path/params structure, warns about the raw output, and notes credit consumption. It does not attempt to enumerate every endpoint, which would be unrealistic, but it equips the agent with the necessary guardrails.

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% (both path and params have descriptions). The description adds practical semantic value by explaining that param names vary per endpoint and providing concrete examples (handle for profiles, query for keyword searches, subreddit for Reddit). This goes beyond the generic schema descriptions and helps the agent construct valid params correctly.

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 states a specific purpose: a generic escape hatch for any ALLOWLISTED long-tail social/web endpoint not covered by the dedicated search_* tools. It provides a concrete example ({path:'/v1/instagram/profile', params:{handle:'nike'}}) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the search_* siblings, so an agent can tell when to reach for it.

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 gives explicit guidance: use it only for long-tail endpoints not covered by the dedicated search_* tools, and explicitly says 'prefer the dedicated search_* tools' and warns that it 'spends credits.' This clearly states when to use it, when not to, and names the alternative category.

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