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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the lower bar applies. The description adds real behavioral value: it discloses that the tool scrapes/researches official Instagram and TikTok handles and hashtags, which is not derivable from the schema and signals external lookups.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first states the purpose, the second the collab-search branch and its downstream tool. Front-loaded with the core action, no 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 what gets researched (handles, hashtags, niche angles) and how the result feeds find_brand_creators. It omits return shape and any latency/cost signal for an openWorld research call, which keeps it from a 5.

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 86%, so the schema already documents uid, bearer_token, conversation_id, and preferences_mode. The description reinforces for_collab_search but largely repeats what the schema already says about it, and adds nothing about query content or how conversation_id chains lists.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Research a brand/product/company' with a stated purpose (derive niche and creator-search angles). The second sentence further distinguishes it by naming the downstream sibling find_brand_creators and the official Instagram/TikTok handle+hashtag research it performs.

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 a clear conditional: set for_collab_search=true when the user wants creators who ALREADY worked with this brand, and links to find_brand_creators as the follow-on. It does not state exclusions (e.g., when to use discover_creators or analyze_seed_creators instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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