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

Annotations only say non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds the billing model (1 lead per newly unlocked creator, free for already-unlocked/delivered), the entitlement requirement, and the two-phase confirmation protocol with the token. That cost and consent semantics are the real behavioral risk here and are fully disclosed, consistent with idempotentHint=true.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the outcome, then cost, then the two-step protocol. No filler, and the ordering follows the order an agent must act in.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating what the first call returns (cost preview + confirmation_token) and what the second call does. Consent, cost, and entitlement are all covered, so nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining why confirmation_token is omitted on the first call and why creator_ids should come from search_ugc_database. It doesn't explain the uid/bearer_token fallback split, but the schema covers that.

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 (reveal creator emails) plus the side effect (save to Creator CRM) and ties the ids to search_ugc_database. An agent can distinguish this from search_ugc_database and save_creator_to_crm 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?

Gives prerequisites (Pro or higher) and the gating condition (only re-call with the token after the user agrees to spend leads), which is exactly the sequencing an agent needs. It signals implicitly that this also persists to CRM, but never names save_creator_to_crm as the alternative for saving without unlocking.

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