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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses sanitization behavior, inclusion of already-revealed emails, default sort order, pagination semantics, and response total after filters. This is substantial behavioral context with no contradictions.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core purpose and add only high-value behavioral details. There is no redundancy or 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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and 80% schema coverage, the description covers the non-obvious behaviors: sanitized contacts, reveal-tool interaction, sorting default, pagination, and total. Remaining filter semantics are already in the schema.

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 80%, and the description adds meaning beyond it by stating the default score-descending order, pagination mechanics via limit/offset, and the presence of a total-after-filters field. It does not enumerate every parameter, but the schema already documents those.

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 clearly identifies the tool as listing graded creators for an app, with contact sanitization, and references the sibling reveal_contact for revealing hidden values. It is easily distinguished from get_creator, export_creators_csv, and list_apps.

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?

It provides clear context on when the tool is relevant—listing scored creators for an app—and mentions reveal_contact as the path for hidden contact values. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with single-creator retrieval or CSV export, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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