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

Beyond the sparse annotations, it discloses the async job pattern (returns job_id plus instant CxB matches, fresh grading usually within 2 minutes, get_job waits), concrete rate limits (5 creators per email on free, 3 or 10 fresh searches every 5 hours on paid), and payment gating via a Stripe link that must be paid before the search starts. It also states the side effect that the full list with contacts is emailed to the supplied address.

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?

It is front-loaded with the search criteria and the return behavior before pricing detail, and every sentence is informative. The pricing and fair-use passage is lengthy and largely duplicates the plan parameter description, which is the main redundancy.

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 12 parameters, an async job handoff, and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting: it explains what is returned immediately, when fresh results arrive, and where the full contact list goes. It stops short of describing failure modes other than unpaid plans, so it is strong rather than exhaustive.

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 92%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including plan limits, country as preference vs requirement, and the default follower range. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the email requirement and asking for email plus product_url in one question, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Starts a search for real TikTok creators') and pins down scope with concrete criteria: judged from bio and posts, active in the last 30 days, views at least 0.3x followers, brand's customer. It also distinguishes itself from topic- or follower-count-driven searches, so an agent can tell it apart from a generic creator lookup.

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?

It gives a clear selection rule ('Use it when the brief is about who the creator is, not just a topic or follower count') and routes the agent to the get_job sibling immediately after calling. It does not compare against request_outreach or get_request, so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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