User Profile

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description usefully reconciles the apparent write-like POST with 'read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms,' and adds the cost/auth gates (paid credits, confirm=true). It stops short of quantifying credit cost or describing failure behavior (e.g., unknown handle), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 core action in the first sentence, then the return payload, then the cost/auth caveats. The dense enumeration of return fields is long but justified because no output schema exists; no sentence is purely redundant.

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 takes on the burden of describing the return shape and does so thoroughly (userProfile fields, highlightStoryMetadata, spotlightStoryMetadata with engagement stats), and it covers the confirm/credit prerequisite. Minor gaps remain around rate limits and error cases, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 handle, account, and confirm are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by handle' and the credit/confirm requirement, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields — 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 ('Retrieves a Snapchat user's public profile by handle') and enumerates the exact scope: identity, stories, and spotlight content. The 'by handle' qualifier also distinguishes it from the sibling tools snapchat_spotlight_by_link and snapchat_spotlight_comments_by_link, which take URLs instead.

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 supplies operational prerequisites ('requires confirm=true', credit consumption) and the handle-vs-link distinction is implied by the name, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over snapchat_spotlight_by_link or the other Snapchat siblings. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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