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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered and this description goes further by disclosing the actual payload contents, including a useful definition ('percent of free samples they made a video for'). It does not say what happens on a miss (empty result vs error), which is the only real gap for a lookup tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the payload summary, and the field list is dense but each item conveys real information. The parenthetical explanation of sample delivery is worth its length.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and their time window. For a two-parameter, read-only lookup this is close to complete; only the not-found/ambiguous-identifier behavior is unaddressed.

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 100%, with both slug and creator_id fully documented including format examples and the 'use this or slug' relationship. The description's 'Pass slug or creator_id' only restates that, so the baseline 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 names a specific resource ('one creator') and enumerates exactly what comes back (sales ranges, badges, category rank, approval rate, sample delivery, social handles), which makes it clearly distinct from the bulk/aggregate siblings like compare_creators and similar_creators. It never explicitly contrasts itself with search_creators, but the singular-record framing is unambiguous.

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 only implied: you call this when you already have a creator identifier and want full detail. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not statement, no mention of what to do when a slug is unknown, and no pointer routing the agent from search_creators to this tool (that routing lives only in the schema).

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