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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the 10-minute freshness window for both modes, that the no-account_id path is queued with numbers updating over the next minutes (async), and that the call is free. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs and none are derivable from the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint flags.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the with/without branching, then the cost note. No filler and every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description covers timing, cost, and sync/async semantics well enough to call the tool correctly, but it never hints at what 'fresh numbers' contains or what the queued response returns, leaving the agent to infer the result shape.

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% (uid, bearer_token, idempotency_key documented; account_id bare), and the description fills the key gap by explaining that account_id switches the tool into single-creator synchronous refresh. It adds no guidance on uid, bearer_token, or idempotency_key, but those are already covered in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Re-scrape tracked creators' latest videos') and immediately splits the two operating modes. An agent can distinguish this from track_creators, untrack_creator, and update_tracked_account without opening any schema.

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 states when to pass account_id (refresh one creator now, synchronous fresh numbers) versus omitting it (queue all stale creators, asynchronous update). It does not name a read-only sibling such as get_tracking_dashboard or list_tracked_videos as the alternative when the agent only wants to view data, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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