Map Instagram Threads and Facebook Presence

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: Threads handle is derived from Instagram at no extra cost, counts are rounded by Meta and include both integer and display string, Facebook is best-effort with login walls making 'blocked' a normal response, and each call consumes Apify credits. These are significant operational details an agent needs.

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 yet well-organized: the main purpose is stated first, followed by platform-specific caveats, then parameter behavior and operational constraints. Every sentence adds information and none are redundant with the schema or annotations. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 having no output schema, the description explains the output format (flat Clay row, rounded counts, display strings), failure modes (Facebook 'blocked'), and prerequisites (APIFY_TOKEN, credits). It also covers pricing implications and caching semantics, making it fully self-sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds valuable context: the handle is used for both Instagram and Threads ('5 of 5 measured'), platforms can be pruned to reduce cost, cache duration is seven days, and includeFollowerCounts trades completeness for speed and proxy freedom. This goes well beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Resolve a company domain to its Instagram, Threads and Facebook accounts with follower and post counts, as one flat Clay ready row." It clearly states what the tool produces and differentiates its behavior for each platform, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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?

Though there are no sibling tools, the description provides detailed guidance on when to use specific options: supplying a handle skips discovery, dropping Facebook is common due to unreliability, includeFollowerCounts=false is cheaper and needs no proxy, and skipCache forces fresh fetches. This qualifies as clear usage context and decision support.

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