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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the actual matching algorithm (top category, sales range, closest video count), which tells the agent what it will get back and why. It omits ordering ties and result-exhaustion behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and finished with the practical takeaway. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 3-parameter, no-required, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what the results mean. The only residual gap is that neither description nor required-list signals that at least one of slug/creator_id must be supplied.

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%: slug, creator_id, and limit are each documented in-schema, including the slug example and the 1-12 bound with default 6. The description adds nothing about which identifier to prefer or how limit interacts with match quality, 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 states a specific result set ('Creators like this one') and defines the similarity rule precisely: same top category, same sales range, closest video count. That level of specificity lets an agent distinguish it from get_creator (single entity) or search_creators (query-driven lookup), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Good for finding backups' supplies one concrete use case, which implies when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do when too few matches exist, and no named alternative such as compare_creators for side-by-side comparison.

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