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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-open-world behavior, and the description adds useful context: the card is public, data is tracked daily, engagement rate has a date, and status can be open, tracked, or not_listed. It does not cover failure or rate-limit behavior, but it goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted phrasing. The resource and returned fields are front-loaded, followed by the status detail.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists the important return fields and status values, which is enough for a simple single-record lookup tool. A little more detail on the exact response shape would be needed for a perfect score.

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?

There is only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that the handle may be provided with or without @. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a public card for one Instagram influencer and lists the fields it contains, which distinguishes it from list/search siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating 'retrieve by handle,' but the purpose is still easy to infer.

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?

Usage is implied: use this for a single influencer card rather than for search or comparison. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over search_influencers or ai_search_influencers, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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