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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral value by explaining how view changes the returned record, how horizon_hours controls sorting/filtering, and the notable constraint 'One request per call,' which is not present in the schema or annotations. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a scannable bullet list for the three view modes. Each line adds necessary information about return contents or parameter behavior, and the closing usage note earns its place. No filler or repetition beyond an acceptable restatement of 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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers every parameter, allowed values, default behavior, return contents, and a usage constraint. There is no missing information an agent would need to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 must carry the parameter documentation, and it does. It explains influencer_id as a creator id or username, view with all three allowed values and their meanings, and horizon_hours with explicit allowed values (24, 168, 720) and its effect on the calls view. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Get an influencer's track record' — and then enumerates the three distinct record types the tool returns (accountability, accuracy, calls). This level of detail makes it clear the tool is about evaluating an influencer's past call performance, not general influencer profiles or rankings, so it can be distinguished from siblings like get_influencers and get_influencer_leaderboard.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs an influencer's track record, with view selecting accountability, accuracy, or calls. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the semantic scope is clear enough that an agent would not mistake it for a leaderboard or profile tool.

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