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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally; the description adds genuinely new signal with the cost note "Free, no leads used" and clarifies that lead_id overrides other filters. It does not discuss pagination semantics beyond the cursor parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences plus a short contrast clause, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the single-record path, then the sibling distinction. No sentence is redundant.

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 enumerating the record fields returned, and annotations cover the safety profile for a 13-parameter read tool. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior and how multiple filters intersect, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 69%, so the schema documents most parameters (tag, cursor, search, lead_id, list_id, limit) themselves. The description reinforces only lead_id and search semantics and adds nothing about sort, stage, platform, or how filters combine — the baseline for partial coverage.

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 ("List creators saved in the user's Creator CRM") and enumerates the contents returned (pipeline stage, deal terms, tags, notes, tasks, activity). It explicitly separates itself from list_leads, a sibling an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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 concrete routing rules: pass lead_id for a single full record, use search to find a creator by name or handle before updating, and do not confuse it with list_leads which reads a single search's result table. The when-to-use-for-what pattern is explicit rather than implied.

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