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 valuable behavioral context: ranking is by measured activity in the corpus, not follower count or correctness, and a large account posting noise ranks here. This clarifies the tool's behavior beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe pagination or return format, but with annotations covering safety, a 4 is appropriate.

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 three sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second and third sentences add crucial differentiation and behavioral context. Every sentence earns its 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the ranking logic, the distinction from the ledger tool, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The only gap is the exact format of the 'asset' parameter and the return structure, but with no output schema and a single parameter, the description does enough. A 4 is appropriate.

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 compensate. The description implies the 'asset' parameter is the asset whose conversation is being analyzed ('The accounts driving conversation about one asset'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the format or allowed values for 'asset' (e.g., ticker vs address vs name), so it doesn't fully compensate. With one parameter and clear contextual meaning, a 4 is justified.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a resource ('influencers'), and a scope ('by asset'), and explicitly distinguishes it from get_influencer_ledger. It clearly defines what the tool does: rank accounts driving conversation about one asset by reach and engagement. The title 'Social · Influencers by asset' reinforces the resource and scope.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'see get_influencer_ledger for track record' and 'that is the point of keeping the two tools separate.' It also clarifies what this tool is NOT (not by follower count, not by correctness), which helps an agent select it appropriately. This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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