patreon_creator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully stresses 'public' (no auth context) and characterizes the earnings data as a 'snapshot', but does not disclose error behavior, handle-case sensitivity, or rate limits. The 'availability flags' phrasing gives some expectation of boolean fields.

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 focused sentences, front-loading the verb and resource and using the second sentence to clarify the only parameter. The return-field list is long but compact and informative.

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 single-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, that it is public-only, and how to format the input. It omits edge-case and error behavior, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that handle is the page slug and giving a concrete example (CachyOS for patreon.com/CachyOS). This disambiguates the input format beyond the schema's one-line description.

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 and resource ('Get a public Patreon creator profile') and enumerates the returned metadata categories, making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly contrast with patreon_creator_tiers or patreon_rss, but the profile-vs-tiers distinction is inferable from the content list.

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 implies its use case via the return field list ('membership/RSS availability flags' etc.) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance nor names sibling tools like patreon_creator_tiers or patreon_rss. An agent must infer which tool to pick from the name and content summary rather than being told.

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