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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return fields (id, handle, nickname, follower count, bio), but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, pagination behavior of limit, or how keyword matching works (exact vs. fuzzy).

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the payoff and the next step. Every clause earns its place, with no 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?

The description compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating returned fields, which is the single biggest gap closed. However, for a tool whose schema is entirely undocumented, leaving platform values and limit semantics unexplained keeps it from being complete enough to call confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It only implies the meaning of keyword via 'search by keyword'; platform (required) and limit (default 10) get no explanation at all, and no valid platform values are given despite a list_platforms sibling existing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource in Chinese: search social-media accounts/influencers by keyword, which is clearly distinct from get_creator and list_creator_posts. It does not address the search_posts sibling, so an agent must still infer that this tool searches accounts rather than content, but the resource noun largely resolves that.

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?

Explicitly routes the workflow: search first, then take the handle or id into get_creator / list_creator_posts for depth. That is real when-to-use guidance with named alternatives, though it gives no exclusion for search_posts and no prerequisites or failure cases.

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