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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the lack of side effects, and the description adds that it is public and requires no key. It does not describe output format, errors, or pagination, but these are less critical given the read-only annotation and single-item scope.

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?

One concise sentence conveys the purpose, scope, key input, and access requirements with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description enumerates the key contents of the manifest (platforms, followers, rate card, how to submit an offer), giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect even without an output schema. It is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'code' is fully described in the schema, and the description 'e.g. from list_creators' adds practical guidance on where the value comes from, going beyond the basic string type.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one creator's full agent manifest'), and the key identifier ('by creator code'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling list_creators by emphasizing 'one' and 'full agent manifest'.

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 practical usage context: public, no key needed, and the parameter description points to list_creators as a source for the code. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives, but the 'one creator' scope and 'full manifest' content make the intended use clear.

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