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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered, but they say nothing about billing. The description adds real value by disclosing '0.04 credits per account that has contacts,' including the nuance that you are only charged for accounts that actually have contacts — a meaningful cost behavior an agent must know before calling.

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 with no wasted words — the output content comes first and the cost/positioning follows. Everything is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned and why it is cheap, which is most of what is needed. However, it omits the account identifier format and the 20-account cap, which an agent must know to call it successfully.

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 50%: platform is documented only as 'Social network' with an enum, and accounts has no description at all. The description does not clarify whether accounts are handles, URLs, or IDs, nor does it mention the 1–20 array cap, leaving a genuine ambiguity for the required input.

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 names a specific resource (public contacts: email, phone, other socials) tied to creators, so the agent immediately knows the payload. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the heavier report-generation siblings via 'Much cheaper than a full report,' though it never names get_influencer_report explicitly.

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?

'Much cheaper than a full report when you only need to reach out' gives a concrete use case that separates this from get_influencer_report or search_influencers. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites, but the selection condition is clear enough to act on.

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