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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds the paid-credit model ("Charged once per search"), the async operation-return pattern with the two required follow-up tools, and the public-pages-only data source. This is exactly the extra context that the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations cannot convey. It does not cover failure or refund behavior, though the schema's clientRequestId note partially compensates.

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?

It uses three short sentences with no filler: first the scope, then the cost, then the required follow-up chain. The most important constraints are front-loaded.

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 an async, credit-charged search with no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisite, the cost, and the operation-to-results path, so the agent can call and follow through correctly. Only edge cases (a failed search, refunds, or result volume) are left to the schema and sibling tools.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description indirectly explains that credits and pricingVersion come from a quote seen by the owner, adding a little meaning, but it says nothing about niche, place or sizeBand 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Find local or niche creators") plus a scope constraint ("from public pages only"), which separates it from the pitch, shortlist and results siblings. The follow-up chain it names (op_status, then search_results) also makes clear that this is the launching call, not the reader.

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 a real precondition ("after the owner has seen the quote") and a postcondition ("follow it with op_status, then read search_results"), which covers when to use it and what to do next. It stops short of naming the quote sibling (soclo_creators_search_quote / soclo_creators_prices) by name, so the agent must infer which quote tool to run first.

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