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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The only added behavioral context is the workspace scoping, and it says nothing about pagination, result caps, or whether archived creators are returned by default.

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?

One sentence with zero filler, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight editing. It is front-loaded but leaves the filtering and return behavior unexplained.

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 tool with five parameters, no required fields, a nested query override object, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the available filters and what a returned entry looks like. Instead it is a single clause, leaving the agent to reverse-engineer behavior from partial schema names.

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 only 40%: brand_id, platform (an enum of five values), and include_archived (default false) carry no descriptions, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. It never mentions that results can be filtered by brand or platform or that archived handles can be included, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (list) and resource (tracked creator handles) scoped to the workspace, which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent list tools such as aidelly_list_competitors or its write counterpart aidelly_add_creator, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over aidelly_list_competitors, and no note that aidelly_add_creator is how handles get tracked in the first place. For a simple read tool some usage is implied, but nothing steers the agent between the many list_* siblings.

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