Komi page

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, which would otherwise look alarming for a scrape; the description proactively explains that these are read-like POST requests and that they do not publish to social platforms. It also discloses credit consumption and confirmation requirements. It stops short of describing rate limits or caching fallback behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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 action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the return-field enumeration earns its space because there is no output schema. It is somewhat dense but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers the credit/confirm and read-vs-publish behavioral concerns. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only sibling routing guidance is missing.

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 url, account, confirm, and cache_max_age thoroughly, including the enum semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Scrapes a Komi page by URL') and enumerates exactly what is extracted (profile, social links, featured content) plus the returned fields. It doesn't explicitly contrast with near siblings like linktree_linktree_page or pillar_pillar_page, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Conveys the key operational condition (requires confirm=true, consumes paid credits, cache_max_age avoids credit spend), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to choose this tool over the similar bio-link scrapers in the sibling list, so routing is left to inference.

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