business_discovery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'bio, follower count, media count, etc.' which gives some output context, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'look up'). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and scope, another describing the return values. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output description.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single parameter, the description provides basic completeness by stating purpose and sample return values. However, for a profile lookup tool in a social media context, it should ideally mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness considerations to be fully complete.

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 fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (which specifies 'Instagram username to look up (without @)'). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Look up another public Business or Creator account's profile' with specific verb ('look up') and resource ('profile'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for public accounts only. It loses a point because it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_profile_info' which might be for the user's own profile.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'public Business or Creator account's profile', suggesting it's for external accounts rather than the authenticated user's own profile. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'get_profile_info' or other profile-related tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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