extract_social_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention the return format (JSON with results and errors) and the option to store results via save_as, but it does not disclose whether the tool performs network requests, any rate limits, or what happens on failure. It's basic but not deeply transparent.

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 reasonably concise, with two sentences that convey the core functionality and a key option. It could be more structured, but it's not verbose or padded.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the main purpose and output but lacks details on optional parameters (mode, js_render) and behavioral traits like error handling or rate limits. It's sufficient for a basic agent but incomplete for robust selection and invocation.

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%, and the description only explains 'save_as' and 'urls' partially. It doesn't explain 'mode' or 'js_render' at all. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage, leaving agents uncertain about optional 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 clearly states the tool extracts social media profile links from a list of URLs, listing the specific platforms supported. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like extract_links, extract_emails, and extract_phones by focusing on social media profiles.

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 implicitly conveys when to use it: when you need social media links from URLs. However, there's no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives like extract_links or extract_products. The sibling tools suggest possible overlap, but no exclusions are provided.

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