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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the minimum 20 resolved calls threshold, the Wilson lower bound methodology, and the window/horizon parameter effects. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core value proposition. The parameter details are organized clearly. The final sentence about reach vs accuracy is slightly tangential but reinforces the tool's purpose.

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 read-only leaderboard tool with no output schema, the description covers the ranking methodology, parameter options, and thresholds. It doesn't describe the return format, but the annotations cover safety and the description provides enough to call the tool correctly. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or result count.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains rank_by values ('accountability' default and 'accuracy'), window_days options (30/90/180), and horizon_hours options (24/168/720). This is strong compensation for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't explicitly map each parameter to its schema property.

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 clearly states the tool returns an influencer leaderboard ranked by accountability or accuracy, with a specific contrast to reach-based rankings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_influencer_ledger and get_creator_rankings by emphasizing the unique ranking methodology.

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?

The description explains the two ranking modes and their parameters, giving clear context for when to use each. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the detailed ranking criteria make the use case clear.

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