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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation via credit charge) and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: the cost per 2 creators and the fact that repeated calls with the same args return the same page without charging. This explains the idempotency and cost model, adding value 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?

Two concise sentences covering purpose and cost behavior. Front-loaded with what it does, then cost details. Efficient without waste, though could be slightly more structured with usage conditions.

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 should explain return values, but it references 'new creators returned' and the credit model, giving enough for an agent to call correctly. It covers the mutation cost and idempotency, which are key for a tool with these annotations.

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 coverage is 50%: search_id is described in the schema, but count lacks a description. The description doesn't elaborate on the count parameter or its default/range, so it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap, leaving baseline 3.

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 (load more) and resource (results/new creators) for a prior search, distinguishing it from search_creators as a continuation mechanism. It's clear but doesn't explicitly name the sibling it continues, though the 'earlier searches' phrasing implies the connection.

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 context: for fetching additional results from a prior search, with the search_id linking to search_creators. It doesn't state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like search_creators explicitly, but the credit and re-call behavior provide practical guidance.

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