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

Annotations declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but say nothing about billing or auth — the description adds both: 5 prepaid credits charged once per organization per profile, free thereafter, and a credential requirement. This meaningfully extends the behavioral picture. It stops short of covering failure modes (insufficient credits) or privacy implications of revealing an address.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, billing, auth), with the core action front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the description covers the two things an agent would otherwise have to guess: cost behavior and credential requirement. Remaining gaps are minor — no mention of the error path when credits are exhausted or whether the revealed address is cached beyond billing idempotency.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that profileId comes from search_creators. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource — reveal a creator contact address — which is unambiguous about what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like enrich_creators or search_creators (the latter only appears in the schema's parameter description), so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

It says a credential is required and that a cost applies, which implicitly frames when this tool is appropriate (only when an actual contact address is needed). But it never explicitly states when to use this over alternatives, nor what happens with insufficient credits or an invalid profile id.

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