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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: seeds are blended via multiple embedding types, results are ranked with scores, and a seed_not_found response means the seed cannot be used for similarity matching and should not be retried. This helps the agent reason about outcomes.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage conditions, seed-passing semantics, result behavior, and sibling routing. Every section earns its place, including the examples that concretize abstract guidance. It is longer than average but not padded.

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 9-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is exceptionally complete: it explains when to use the tool, how to pass seeds, what alternative tools to use, what the result looks like, and how to handle errors. The examples tie everything together.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the seed-related parameters: it explains that seed_creator_ids are canonical UUIDs, that seed_profiles are platform+username pairs, and that handlers should be resolved via autocomplete_creators first if needed. It also clarifies that seeds can be passed in either or both forms.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Find creators SIMILAR to one or more seed creators.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming semantic_search_creators and match_creators as alternatives, so the agent can tell which tool fits without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: use when the user already knows a seed creator they like. It also gives concrete when-not-to-use guidance by directing topic/niche queries to semantic_search_creators and candidate scoring to match_creators, reinforced with user-phrase examples.

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