get_sponsor_creators

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the cost, aggregate nature of engagement rate, platform-specific windows, and pagination parameters. It omits read-only status (implied) and potential rate limits, but the coverage is good for a list endpoint.

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 a single, well-packed paragraph that front-loads the purpose, includes key result fields, and ends with cost. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff.

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 the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains most critical aspects: purpose, returned fields, platform nuance, and cost. It lacks explicit pagination metadata in the response but covers the essentials for a list tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that avgRecentSponsoredEngagementRate is cross-brand aggregate with platform-dependent windows, supplementing the schema. The cost note also informs parameter use.

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 clearly states the tool lists creators a brand has sponsored and explicitly calls it the inverse of get_*_sponsorship, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools. It also specifies returned fields, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 tells when to use it (list sponsored creators) and notes the cost (25 credits per page) and platform limitations (no TikTok). It indirectly guides against misuse by mentioning the inverse tool, but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools for different queries.

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