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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond the annotations: it explains the quota cost ('Spend ONE monthly reveal'), clarifies idempotence ('without spending again'), and enumerates possible errors ('no_subscription, cap_reached, no_contact'). This is consistent with the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, so there is no contradiction.

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 concise sentences cover the purpose, cost, idempotence, and error cases with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes distinct information.

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 tool has one well-documented parameter, and the description explains the cost, the returned value type, idempotence, and possible error states. Even without an output schema, an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the expected result.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter, creator_id, including a UUID pattern and the note 'An id from list_creators.' The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond a generic reference to 'creator', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Spend ONE monthly reveal to get a creator's contact value (email / IG handle / bio link)'. It also states the cost and idempotence, making the operation unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_creator, which would not necessarily reveal contact data.

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 implies the tool should be used when a caller wants a creator's contact value and is willing to spend a monthly reveal, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The cost and idempotence hints provide context, but there is no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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