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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful return-value nuance with 'Missing numbers are null' and clarifies that it fetches an 'actual public' profile, but it does not describe output structure, error conditions, or data freshness.

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 deliver the primary purpose and one valuable null-handling detail without filler. The main action is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It conveys purpose and hints at numeric fields, yet omits the returned profile shape, supported platform behavior beyond the schema enum, and any caveats about 'missing' data other than numbers.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the platform enum, username formatting, or how the two parameters work together. The only parameter meaning comes from the schema's property names and enum values.

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?

Description opens with 'Look up an actual public social profile' — a specific verb and resource. 'Actual public' and 'using ScrapeCreators' help distinguish it from sibling tools like get_order, get_wallet, or list_posts.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_posts or get_wallet. 'Using ScrapeCreators' identifies the source but does not help an agent decide between profile lookup and other operations.

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