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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing long-poll blocking behavior, the repeat-until-terminal-state loop, and the rich result payload (quoted evidence per must-have, follower/view metrics, contact route, funnel counts). Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, so this added operational context is the right kind of contribution; only failure behavior is left unstated.

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 purpose, but the long parenthetical is bloated and contains a redundant repetition ('how many were found, and the funnel (how many were found, active and checked)'). The wait_seconds range is restated from the schema, so a few phrases do not earn their place.

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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return values in detail, and it covers the async/polling lifecycle. It stops short of describing the failure state payload or behavior for an unknown/expired job_id, which matters for a job-status tool.

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 50%: wait_seconds is already documented in the schema, and the description largely repeats its range while adding the blocking semantics. job_id is never explicitly explained, though 'of a find_creators search' implies it is the identifier returned by that tool.

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: retrieve status and results of a find_creators search, and names the sibling find_creators that produces the job. An agent can distinguish this from find_creators (which starts a search) without opening either 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 explicit polling guidance: it waits up to 45 seconds, and you should 'call it again until status is done or failed.' The implicit sequencing after find_creators is clear from the opening clause, though no exclusion is stated relative to get_request, which could also look like a retrieval tool.

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