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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which would otherwise be puzzling for a search; the description resolves this by disclosing 'Billing is per delivered creator (data.count),' giving concrete cost semantics beyond the annotations. It still omits rate limits or pagination behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the core distinction and then packs required params, limit bounds, return shape, and billing into a compact block with no filler. It is dense but every clause carries an operational fact, with only minor repetition of the limit range.

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 an output schema exists, the description needn't detail return fields, yet it still names the AI-inferred attributes and relevance score, and it covers billing, required params, and filters. Nothing critical is missing, though pagination/ordering behavior is not addressed.

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 all four parameters and the nested filters object are already documented. The description adds the limit range/default and the 'same optional filters as Similar Creators' cross-reference, but repeats schema content rather than adding format or edge-case meaning, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Finds creators') and immediately distinguishes the mechanism from its sibling: 'from a natural-language brief instead of a seed account,' directly contrasting with post_waveinflu_similar_creators. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

The 'instead of a seed account' framing implies the selection condition — use this when you have a text brief rather than a seed creator — and explicitly points at the parameters to supply. It stops short of an explicit 'if you have a seed account, use Similar Creators' exclusion, so routing still requires slight inference.

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