social-intel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the return fields (name, bio, follower/karma counts, creation date, platform-specific metrics) and includes pricing info. However, it does not mention error scenarios, rate limits, real-time vs cached data, or any authentication requirements. The pricing disclosure is a positive addition, but overall transparency is moderate.

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 highly concise, with two main sentences plus a brief pricing note. It front-loads the core purpose, then details usage, supported platforms, and return fields. No extraneous words or redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 no output schema and many sibling tools, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to use it (two methods), which platforms are supported, and what data it returns. It lacks details on error handling, platform auto-detection limitations, or behavior when both URL and platform+username are provided. Overall, it is fairly complete for a simple data retrieval 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters (url, platform, username) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship: 'Pass a profile URL (platform auto-detected) or platform + username.' It also lists supported platforms and return fields, providing context beyond the schema's parameter 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 clearly states the verb 'Returns public profile data' and specifies the resource 'any social platform account'. It explicitly lists supported platforms (GitHub, Reddit, HackerNews, Twitter/X, npm, Open Graph), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reddit-intel or twitter-intel. This gives a specific and unique purpose.

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 provides clear usage instructions: 'Pass a profile URL (platform auto-detected) or platform + username.' It lists supported platforms and describes the two alternative parameter combinations. However, it does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools (e.g., reddit-intel for detailed Reddit data), so some guidance is implicit.

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