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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds valuable behavior context: seeds are blended via embeddings, results are ranked with scores, and the flat fields can constrain results. It also mentions resolving handles via autocomplete_creators first, adding practical behavioral guidance.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear intro, usage guidelines, alternatives, and concrete examples. Every sentence serves a purpose—no filler—and the examples clarify both the tool and when not to use it.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, two seed types, and several alternative tools), the description fully covers when/how to use it, what it returns, and how to combine with sibling tools. The examples add completeness by showing exact parameter usage for a user request.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the difference between seed_creator_ids and seed_profiles, advising to resolve handles via autocomplete_creators, and instructing users to use follower, engagement-rate, and verified fields to constrain results. This helps agents select and populate params correctly.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('lookalike creators'), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming semantic_search_creators and match_creators with their different use cases. The examples further reinforce the purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the user already knows a creator they like'), and provides exclusions with alternatives: 'Use semantic_search_creators instead when you have a topic/niche but no seed' and 'Use match_creators when you have specific candidates...'.

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