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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: results never contain private contact details, a language model structures queries server-side, and verification levels are derived from profile data. This adds practical behavioral context that an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 English portion is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and logically organized from main parameter to optional filters to behavioral caveats. The full German repetition doubles length, but this is justifiable for a DACH-focused tool and carries no filler.

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?

The description covers the search concept, the free-text query mechanism, optional filters, privacy constraints, and downstream sibling tools. With no output schema, it does not describe the return shape in detail, but for a directory search this is a minor gap since get_creator is provided for deeper details.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does explain query with an example, city as substring, topics as at least one match, and human_verification_level_min values 0 and 1 with a pointer to get_vocab. However, it omits max_results entirely and does not define the possible value 2 for human_verification_level_min.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Searches the UGC-VZ directory of real, verified UGC creators in the German-speaking region (DACH).' It also separates this tool from siblings by referencing get_creator for details and request_outreach for contact requests, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explains that query is free text and the main path, provides a concrete example, and lists optional filters. It explicitly directs when to use alternatives: 'Use get_creator for details on a match; request_outreach for a contact request.' This gives clear usage guidance beyond a mere definition.

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