Spotlight by Link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real value by explaining the apparent read/write ambiguity ('Read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms') and by disclosing credit consumption plus the confirm gate. It stops short of describing rate limits or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, tightly front-loaded: the purpose comes first, followed by the output fields and the operational caveats. No filler or repetition, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 single-resource fetch with no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return shape and covers the credit/confirm behavior. It is nearly complete; the only minor gap is that it never differentiates the Snapchat Spotlight siblings, which would help an agent choose correctly.

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, and confirm, establishing the baseline of 3. The description reinforces the confirm requirement and the URL-based input but adds no syntax or format detail (e.g., expected URL shape) beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetches public data for a Snapchat Spotlight video by URL,' and even enumerates the returned fields (snap id, description, creator, engagement, thumbnail, content URL). This clearly separates it from snapchat_user_profile, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or snapchat_spotlight_comments_by_link to reinforce the distinction.

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?

It supplies a prerequisite ('requires confirm=true') and a cost warning about paid API credits, which are useful invocation conditions. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance against the sibling Snapchat tools (e.g., profile vs. comments by link), leaving routing to inference from the name.

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