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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing cost behavior ('free, does not count against the daily search limit'), persistence behavior ('not kept as a search'), and result shape ('names but no handles'). The quota and persistence details are exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then routing, then cost, then output caveat — a sensible priority order. The phrase 'with no description to match, as the dashboard's Discover list does before a search' is slightly convoluted but carries real 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?

For a 13-parameter, filter-only read tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, cost, persistence, and the key output limitation (names but no handles). Only minor gaps remain, such as default result count, which the schema already supplies.

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 100% and each of the 13 filters is already documented in the schema, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. It only implicitly signals the absence of a free-text/keyword parameter via 'no description to match'; the niche/market semantics are already 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 (lists) and resource (creators) plus ordering (most followed first) and an explicit negative scope ('with no description to match'). It clearly distinguishes itself from search_creators by framing this as the pre-search Discover list.

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 an explicit when-to-use example ('the biggest beauty creators in the US') and an explicit when-to-use-the-alternative rule ('use search_creators when the user describes what the content should be about'). The routing decision is fully specified.

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