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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the economic consequence that scan credits already spent are not refunded, while the untrack action itself costs no credits. It also states what is returned (the removed creator and slots used) and what state changes (feed and plan slot).

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the effect, then the routing guidance, then return values and the credit caveat. Every sentence supplies information the agent needs and none is filler.

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 compensates by describing the return payload and the non-refund rule. Combined with the destructive annotation, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and understand the cost of doing so.

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 100% and the single creator_id parameter is already documented as 'The id from list_tracked_creators'; the description repeats that provenance but adds no format or validation detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 ('Stops tracking a creator') and immediately names the concrete consequences: removal from the tracked list and feed, and freeing a plan slot. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling track_creator.

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 tells the agent when to use it ('to make room before track_creator') and where to get the required id ('list_tracked_creators shows the ids'), which are exactly the two siblings an agent would otherwise have to guess between.

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