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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the default status of 'active' (a filtering behavior the agent would otherwise miss) and the offset/nextOffset pagination model.

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?

Effectively three front-loaded sentences: what it returns, then filtering behavior, then pagination limits. Dense and largely waste-free, though the parenthetical category list is long and the last clause is slightly compressed.

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 helpfully names return fields (sourceRef, confirmed) and documents the pagination contract. For a six-parameter read-only list tool this is close to sufficient; only brandId and the relative positioning against sibling fact/restriction tools are missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden; it explains contentId, status default, limit cap, and pagination, and its category list implicitly decodes the category enum values. It leaves brandId completely unexplained and gives no syntax hints for filtering, so compensation is partial rather than complete.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (facts learned about the creator), with an explicit enumeration of the fact categories that maps to the category enum. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like list_restrictions or get_creator_memory, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives useful invocation context — status defaults to active, limit max 100, and contentId filters facts learned from that content — which tells the agent how to scope a call. It never says when to prefer this tool over list_restrictions, get_creator_memory, or get_creator_context, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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