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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations: states cost per platform (2 credits a call unless numbered), that failed calls cost 0, that max_cost_credits causes a free refusal, and directs error handling to error.fix and billing disclosure to billing.display. The handle parameter's free re-read behavior is also spelled out.

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 lead sentence and the find_creators pointer are well front-loaded, but the per-platform block is compressed into near-cryptic shorthand whose notation (numbers, pipes, 'unless numbered') costs the reader extra parsing. The content earns its place; the formatting does not.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers returned fields, per-platform input requirements, cost behavior, error recovery, and an alternative tool. The residual gap is the ambiguous cost notation rather than missing capability information.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description does the heavy lifting by mapping each platform to the accepted identifier keys, which the schema alone does not convey. It loses a point because the notation is telegraphic ('a|b: either one', 'unless numbered') and the meaning of the trailing '12'/'1' markers must be inferred from the credits sentence.

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 verb and resource — 'Get one account's public profile' — and enumerates the returned fields (name, bio, verification, follower counts). This clearly separates it from siblings like user_posts, creator_card, and account_watch.

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 an explicit routing table of which parameter each platform requires ('Give id: bilibili...', 'Give id|username: tiktok, x, youtube'), plus an explicit alternative for bulk work: 'Many creators? find_creators sizes them up in one run.' The agent knows when to call this and when not to.

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