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

Goes well past the readOnly/openWorld annotations: states latency, that only up to two matches are returned (sometimes one or none), the exact card ordering (relevance, then engagement, then followers), that no score is returned, what the ranking field means, and that an optional safety object with flagged/reason can withhold details for privacy. That is unusually complete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the input contract, then response shape, then ranking and safety. It is a single dense block with no filler, though the parenthetical ordering list is packed tightly and the undefined 'detailed mode' phrase adds mild ambiguity.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does it: return cardinality, card contents, ordering, missing score, ranking field, and the safety object are all explained. Minor gap: 'detailed mode' is referenced but no such parameter exists, which could confuse an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, but with only one parameter the schema already constrains type and length. The description still adds real meaning beyond that: accepted languages (Turkish or English) and the fact the sentence is interpreted as filters and niche words rather than matched literally.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('AI search for influencers') and explains the input is a natural-language sentence read as filters and niche words. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling 'search_influencers', so the agent must infer the AI/natural-language vs keyword distinction.

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?

Implies when it fits (free-text need, 2-200 characters, Turkish or English) and warns of cost (~30 seconds in detailed mode), but gives no explicit when-not or 'use search_influencers instead' routing despite six siblings with overlapping search semantics.

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