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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by disclosing that no API key is required and by distinguishing output size between 'overview' (compact) and 'full' (comprehensive). This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and efficiently lists topics and auth requirements. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple documentation-retrieval tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers available topics, the default behavior implied by the schema, and the auth requirement, leaving no significant gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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% and already lists all allowed topics including the platform slug example. The description repeats this information without adding new semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool retrieves SocialCrawl API documentation, with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates valid topics and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_platforms and request by focusing on documentation retrieval.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when API documentation is needed) and mentions that no API key is required, which aids selection. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though the sibling names make the differentiation apparent.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, specifically the auth requirement ('No API key required') and the nature of the response (endpoint details, credit costs, response types). This helps the agent understand what to expect without duplication.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all available endpoints') and packs all key details efficiently. No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear schema, annotations) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (endpoints with parameters, costs, response types). It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without additional documentation.

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 schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter 'platform' with a description and enum. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List all available endpoints for a specific platform' with specific content details (required parameters, credit costs, response types). This distinguishes it from siblings like socialcrawl_list_platforms (lists platforms) and socialcrawl_request (makes requests).

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 context about when to use the tool: it is for discovering endpoints for a specific platform, and it notes that no API key is required. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the sibling names and description make the intended use obvious.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying that no API key is required and detailing the return content (endpoint counts, descriptions), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide key details (return fields, no API key). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 simple list tool with no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It states the exact number of platforms, what is returned, and that authentication is not required – all an agent needs to select and invoke this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe.

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 explicitly states the action (List), the resource (all 21 social media platforms), and the scope (available through SocialCrawl). It also specifies what is returned (names, endpoint counts, descriptions), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like `socialcrawl_list_endpoints` which list endpoints 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a list of the 21 SocialCrawl platforms. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to `socialcrawl_list_endpoints` for endpoints. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the requirement for a valid SOCIALCRAWLIC_API_KEY and explains that platform, resource, and parameters are validated before the call to avoid wasting credits, which is useful context. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds relevant information (data types, platforms, key requirement, validation) with no filler or redundancy.

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 the schema and annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, key requirement, validation, and data types. Sibling tools handle discovery of platforms/endpoints, and no output schema exists so return value details are not required. It is sufficiently complete for a general-purpose request 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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for platform, resource, and params. The description only mentions 'validates platform, resource, and parameters' without adding new syntax, formats, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it makes API requests to any SocialCrawl endpoint and fetches real-time social media data from 21 platforms. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list platforms or endpoints.

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 implies usage by noting it requires an API key and validates inputs to avoid wasting credits, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like socialcrawl_list_platforms or socialcrawl_get_docs, nor state when to prefer this over them.

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