bluesky

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses 'No login required', that it runs on Apify as subimpact/bluesky-scraper-api, and an explicit pay-per-event cost model ($0.001/post, $0.002/profile plus platform usage). What's missing is behavior on failure/rate limits (only hinted at in the proxyConfiguration schema field) and what the response looks like.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability statement, then a compact pricing/mode block. The pricing lines earn their place because cost is behaviorally important, though the 'Posts, Profiles, Threads & Followers' heading slightly duplicates the body sentence.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers cost, auth, and platform but never says what a scraped item contains (post text, engagement counts, author fields, etc.) or how results are paginated. An agent can invoke it, but cannot predict the return shape.

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 baseline is 3. The description's only added semantic value is tying per-item pricing to what gets scraped, which helps an agent reason about maxItems, but it adds nothing about the mode/handle/postUri relationships beyond what the schema already spells out.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Scrape Bluesky posts, profiles, threads, and follower graphs by keyword, hashtag, or handle.' The mode enum and description map cleanly onto those resources, so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves and for which platform.

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 no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the sibling tools (google_search, youtube, tiktok_hashtag, etc.), even though those are clearly adjacent social/search scrapers. Usage context is only implied by the mode list ('search', 'author_feed', 'thread'), which lives in the schema rather than the description.

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