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

The description adds 'Public' and the nature of the data, but beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it doesn't disclose further behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or response size. It is transparent about being a read operation, but not much more.

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, concise sentence that efficiently covers the action, target, and key contents without redundant details. No fluff or unnecessary 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is retrieved (manifest fields), how to specify the creator (code), and the public nature. No critical information is missing for basic usage.

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 fully describes the sole parameter 'code' with an example ('ANDREW'), and the description reinforces it with 'by creator code'. The addition of 'full agent manifest' gives context on what the code yields, enhancing understanding 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get one creator's full agent manifest' and lists the contents (platforms, followers, rate card, how to submit an offer). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'one creator' and 'by creator code', unlike list_creators which is plural, and covers different data than get_market_benchmarks.

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: use this when you need details for a single creator by their code. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the mention of 'full agent manifest' and 'by creator code' provides enough context. The 'Public' note hints that no special access is needed, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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