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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the human-in-the-loop workflow: a person replies with a quote within a day and nothing is sent to creators until that quote is accepted. That is the single most important behavioral fact about this tool (real outreach, spend, latency) and the description surfaces it plainly, along with the request_id return.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the agent gets ('Done for you') followed by inputs, then the approval gate, then the return value. No filler or restatement of the schema.

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 15-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the required inputs and the returned request_id adequately. It stops short of saying how to follow up on that request_id (presumably via get_request), which is a minor gap given the sibling tool exists.

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 80%, and the description adds the required-vs-optional framing plus the relationship between job_id and find_creators and what creator_handles are for. It doesn't touch the richer parameters (must vs nice, country as preference, follower defaults), but the schema covers those well.

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 action (CxB contacts creators on the brand's behalf with the brief) and the return (who said yes, with rates). It also implicitly separates itself from find_creators by naming it as the source of an optional job_id, so an agent can place it among its siblings without opening a 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 clear preconditions: supply the brief, budget, timeline and contact_email, plus optionally a job_id from find_creators or explicit creator handles. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g. use find_creators first if you have no candidates), but the context needed to invoke it is unambiguous.

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