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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the returned payload (followers, engagement rate, business email). It says nothing about the read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or that find_email=true (the default) triggers an external email lookup that may be slow or costly, so key behavioral traits are missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and the scope stated first. For a 12-parameter tool it is arguably too terse, which costs a point, but nothing is padded.

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?

12 parameters, 42% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema mean the description must do far more work than one sentence allows. It omits parameter defaults, the cost/behavior of email discovery, and any result-count or pagination context, so an agent cannot call it confidently without opening the schema.

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 42%, below the 50% threshold, so the description needs to compensate. It maps loosely to niches, location/country, min/max_followers, min_engagement_rate and the email flags, but leaves per_niche, only_new, platforms, and language undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb (Finds) plus resource (Instagram and TikTok creators) and scopes the search axes (niche, place) and payload (followers, engagement rate, business email). This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling find_youtube_channels and find_linkedin_leads by platform, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is the creator-discovery tool for Instagram/TikTok, which differentiates it from the YouTube and LinkedIn siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing, so the guidance is left to inference.

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