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

Annotations already carry idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: consuming exactly one monthly reveal, idempotent re-reveal behavior (no repeated cost), and the specific error codes no_subscription, cap_reached, and no_contact. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The most important behavior (spend, get value) is front-loaded, followed by idempotency and error conditions. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the core action, cost, idempotency, return value types, and possible errors Companhia. Since there is no output schema, it gives enough return-value shape. It does not elaborate on confirm or how to respond to cap_reached, but those are adequately handled by the schema and error names.

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 100%; creator_id and confirm are already documented in the schema, including the 'id from list_creators' hint and the confirmation guard. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond clarifying that the revealed contact belongs to the creator, which is exactly the baseline case.

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 states a specific action ('Spend ONE monthly reveal') and a specific resource/result ('a creator's contact value'), listing the concrete return types (email / IG handle / bio link). This inherently distinguishes it from siblings like get_creator or list_creators.

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 makes the usage context explicit: call this when the user wants a creator's contact value and is willing to spend a monthly reveal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the cost/unlock framing gives clear enough context for an agent to decide.

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