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

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent action. The description adds useful behavior beyond those annotations by stating the credit cost and that unlocked rows open on the platform of the originating search.

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 short and front-loaded, starting with the action and resource before adding cost and usage cautions. Every sentence contributes useful context without repetition.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, cost, and platform behavior. It leaves minor gaps around idempotency and parameter constraints, but the annotations already cover part of the safety profile.

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 50%, so the description should compensate more for parameter meaning. It clarifies that search_result_ids come from search_influencers, but it does not explain the required platform parameter's role, the array limit, or whether all IDs must belong to the same platform.

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 action, reveal hidden rows from search_influencers by search_result_id, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_influencers tool. An agent can identify the resource and the unlock operation without opening the schema.

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 advises unlocking only rows that will be used and ties the rows back to search_influencers, which implies usage after a search. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, whether rows must be already visible as hidden, or how it relates to alternatives beyond search_influencers.

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