Pillar page

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

With readOnlyHint=false the annotations alone imply a mutating call, so the clarification that 'Read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms' adds real value. It also discloses paid credit consumption, the confirm=true gate, and a data-removal contact path. It does not cover rate limits or response caching beyond what the schema param 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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the credit/confirm caveat is placed at the end where it belongs. Slightly padded by the long enumeration of social accounts ('and more') and a compliance note that could be tighter, 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape – and it does, listing id, names, email, location, social accounts, links with click counts, and product fields. Credit/confirm/caching/compliance context is present; only cross-sibling disambiguation 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 url, account, confirm, and cache_max_age are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing to parameter meaning (its field list describes outputs, not inputs), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (scrapes) and resource (Pillar page by URL) and enumerates what is extracted: creator profile, social links, and products. An agent can distinguish it from the TikTok/Instagram profile tools by resource name, but it never names its true siblings (linktree_linktree_page, komi_komi_page, linkme_profile, amazon_shop_amazon_shop_page) to differentiate among the 'bio-link page' family.

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?

Implied usage is clear (call it when you have a Pillar page URL), and it discloses the confirm=true precondition plus credit cost. However, there is no explicit routing guidance comparing it to the Linktree/Komi/Linkbio/Linkme alternatives that an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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