Map Company Social Presence

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: discovery methods (homepage links, web search, pattern guessing, validation), follower count limitations (X URL-only, Instagram/Facebook best-effort), credit consumption, and read-only nature. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return format (flat Clay-ready JSON with URLs and follower counts) and covers key limitations and requirements. It provides sufficient completeness for an agent to assess the tool.

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 the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds context about platform-specific limitations and default behavior but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 maps a company's social media presence across specified platforms, returning profile URLs and follower counts. It distinguishes from siblings like 'resolve_linkedin_url' by covering multiple platforms and providing a broader scope.

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 explains when to use (need social presence data) and prerequisites (company_domain or company_name, APIFY_TOKEN, credits). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative tools, missing some guidance.

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