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

The annotations already provide strong behavioral signals (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false). The description merely states *how* the data is filtered (region/date range), adding some context but not rich behavioral constraints like rate limits or response structure.

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 perfectly concise, using only seven words to state the core functionality of the tool without redundancy or 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?

Given the complexity of the input schema (multiple optional filters, pagination, and sorting objects), the description provides a solid high-level overview. It is highly usable, though it doesn't hint at the specific format expected for date range values, which is detailed in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are meticulously defined. Since the description only reiterates the concept of region and date range (which are already in the schema), it adds minimal semantic value beyond the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 clearly and specifically defines the tool's function: querying creator rankings. It identifies the resource and the filtering mechanisms (region and date range) immediately, making its purpose 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?

The description provides basic context on the operation but offers no guidance on when this specific tool should be used versus highly similar siblings (e.g., seeking creator analytics, or searching for creators by name). Usage is implied rather than explicitly defined against alternatives.

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