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

Annotations declare a non-destructive, open-world write, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it consumes credits per new scan, a recently-scanned creator is free, the first scan takes minutes, and slots are limited so untracking frees one. This cost/latency/idempotency detail is exactly what annotations cannot express.

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-loaded with the action and scope, then alternatives, then return/latency, then cost. Sentences are dense with semicolons but each carries distinct information; only the credit-cost sentence overlaps slightly with the 'see get_account' pointer.

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 steps in to describe returns (per-creator outcome, total cost, credits left) and the async follow-up path (get_creator_report after a few minutes). For a mutating, credit-consuming, open-world tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 75% and the schema already documents handle format, the 5-item cap and the platform enum, so the description largely restates it. It does not clarify the singular 'creator'+'platform' vs. 'creators' array relationship or what the 'label' enum (competitor/inspiration) changes, leaving meaningful ambiguity unaddressed.

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 ('Adds ... creators ... to the creator's tracked list and scans their posts'), plus scope (up to 5) and supported platforms. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_tracked_creators and get_creator_report, which it names.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('for competitors or inspiration found with find_competitors') and routes to alternatives: untrack_creator to free a slot, list_tracked_creators to see the list, get_creator_report for the follow-up report, get_account for credit balance. No inference is required.

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