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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: new accounts load in the background, list_tracked_accounts should be checked until status is not pending, and over-cap entries are returned in skipped with a reason. These details materially help an agent handle the async processing and plan limits correctly.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main action and then adds only operationally relevant details about input formats, background loading, status polling, and plan caps. Every sentence contributes useful context, and there is no redundant restatement of the title.

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?

Given the mutation/background-processing nature of the tool, the annotations, and the mostly described schema, the description includes the missing operational context an agent needs: async loading, follow-up polling, and cap/skipped behavior. No output schema exists, but the description still explains the key return condition around skipped entries.

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?

The schema already documents 71% of parameters, but the description adds useful meaning for the complex accounts parameter by listing accepted formats: handles (@mia, tt:mia), profile links, and { handle, platform } objects. It does not cover every parameter, but it improves the most important one 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: start tracking Instagram or TikTok creators' videos in Creator Tracking. It clearly distinguishes this from listing or untracking siblings through the action wording and names list_tracked_accounts only as a follow-up. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

The description gives clear usage context: it is for starting tracking from the CRM or any handle, and it explains the post-call polling flow via list_tracked_accounts. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use cases or alternatives such as untrack_creator, so it stops short of a full 5.

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