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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance by stating that contact value stays hidden unless already revealed, which is a non-obvious access-control behavior an agent needs to know.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the main purpose, uses a colon to introduce the content categories, and ends with the contact-visibility caveat. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description names the major response categories and the one conditional behavior that affects returned data. For a simple read-only detail tool with a single required parameter, this is enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The only parameter, creator_id, is fully documented in the schema with a description pointing to list_creators as the source. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the schema already carries this burden.

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 'Full detail for one creator' and then enumerates the specific data categories returned, making the tool's purpose explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from list_creators and other sibling tools because it targets a single creator's full record rather than a collection or action.

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 clearly implies this is the detail-fetch tool for one creator, and the schema's parameter description ('An id from list_creators') reinforces the expected workflow of listing creators first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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