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

With annotations already covering safety (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), the description still adds substantial context: it discloses the data sources, that authors are queued as candidates 'with proof', that brand-owned accounts are excluded, and that posts older than 18 months are discarded. This explains the surprising side effect of queuing candidates, which the annotations alone would not.

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 sentences with the differentiator front-loaded ('Content-first search...'), followed by mechanism, exclusions, and the pipeline requirement. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, it explains the mechanism, the exclusion rules, and the required hand-off to enrich_and_score. It leaves paging/result caps and the effect of preferences_mode to the schema, which is reasonable given 86% coverage.

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 86%, so the schema already documents uid, bearer_token, conversation_id, preferences_mode, and agent_preferences. The description only reinforces the `brands` parameter via 'passing the same brand names in `brands`' and does not add meaning for max_results or the preferences plumbing. Baseline 3 applies.

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 with a sharp qualifier: creators who ALREADY made content for specific brands, and lists the three search surfaces (Instagram posts tagging the brand, brand hashtags, TikTok keyword videos). This cleanly separates it from discover_creators, search_ugc_database, and track_creators.

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?

Gives an explicit mandatory follow-up ('ALWAYS follow with enrich_and_score passing the same brand names in `brands`') and the schema reinforces researching brands with research_company first. It lacks an explicit when-not clause or a direct contrast with sibling search tools, so not a 5.

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