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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing per-plan quotas (10/200, 30/500, 100/3000), the fact that the daily limit only counts first-time-found creators, and the over_daily_limit skip behavior. These are operational traits an agent cannot derive from readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=true.

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-loads the core purpose, then the dependency, then cost and limits. It is dense but nearly every clause carries a distinct fact; the long parenthetical quota enumeration is the only part that feels heavier than necessary.

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 usefully notes the returned creator ids and the skipped/over_daily_limit outcome. It stops short of describing the full response shape (e.g. how not-found creators are reported), but an agent has enough to call and interpret it.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates that bare @handles need platform and restricts supported platforms to TikTok, Instagram and YouTube, which largely duplicates the schema's enum and field description rather than adding new semantics.

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 ('check whether specific creators are in Kolect's database'), the accepted identifier formats, and the output (creator ids), plus the downstream tools that consume those ids. This distinguishes it clearly from search_creators and list_saved_creators.

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?

Gives strong context: it is the prerequisite step for check_fake_followers, get_emails and save_creators, and it is free. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_creators, but the lookup-vs-search distinction is implied by the identifier-based input.

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