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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that by disclosing the operation is asynchronous ('queue its base portrait'). However, it says nothing about the required idempotencyKey's deduplication behavior, credit cost, or failure modes, which matter for a create call.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the follow-up polling instruction.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations about returns, the description does at least route the agent to get_influencer for polling. But for a 7-parameter create tool it omits parameter meaning, cost, and what the initial call returns (job id vs. influencer id), leaving real gaps.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them and instead mentions none. The required idempotencyKey, brandId, and optional fields like details/ethnicity are left entirely to bare JSON Schema types with no semantic guidance.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Create a reusable AI influencer') and adds the scope of what creation triggers ('queue its base portrait'), which distinguishes it from regenerate_influencer and get_influencer. It does not explicitly contrast with other create_* siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

'Poll with get_influencer' tells the agent exactly what to do after this call, which is the key follow-up action for an async create. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., vs regenerate_influencer or list_influencers), but the context is clear.

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