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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them — that this is a 'Preview convenience' operation and 'Works keyless for previews' — clarifying that no key/commitment is needed, though the fee sentences are promotional rather than behavioral.

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 two opening sentences about creator fees and the 15% cut do not describe how to invoke the tool and consume space before the actual purpose. The remaining sentences are tight and front-load the sibling routing, but roughly 40% of the text is promotional 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?

For a 4-optional-param, no-output-schema, read-only tool, the description covers purpose, the fallback relationship to crew_list_kols, and keyless operation. The only gap is a clearer statement of what a 'candidate KOL pack' returns, but annotations cover the safety/mutation profile so nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents name, ticker, description, and seats, giving a baseline of 3. The description's 'name/ticker/vibe' phrasing loosely maps to those fields but adds no formats, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema supplies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'match a token name/ticker/vibe to a candidate KOL pack,' which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like crew_list_kols and crew_search_kols. The opening sentences about creator fees and the 15% cut are tangential value-prop framing rather than tool purpose, which slightly dilutes an otherwise clear statement.

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?

It explicitly names the preferred alternative ('Prefer explicit crew selection via crew_list_kols') and the condition that selects this tool instead ('Autohire is a fallback'). This is a direct when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule with the sibling named, leaving little to inference.

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