Search Creators

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real behavioral weight and does: it discloses the not_in_catalog prerequisite, the 409 REFERENCE_CREATOR_NOT_INDEXED failure, capability limits on YouTube, and that results are compact summaries. It also hands off search_id to save_search_results_to_campaign, telling the agent the result is reusable downstream.

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-loaded with purpose, then progressively narrower mode/prerequisite detail; every clause carries operational information. The middle sentence is heavily semicolon-packed, which costs some readability but not content.

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 three-mode search with a very large filter surface, the description covers the decisions that most affect correctness: mode selection, platform-specific limits, reference indexing prerequisite, and the error path. Remaining gaps (limit, detail_level, sort_by semantics beyond the YouTube caveat) are real but secondary; no output schema exists, so the 'compact summaries' note usefully sets expectations.

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 30% across 10 parameters with a large nested filters object, so the description must compensate. It does explain kind semantics per platform and what filters YouTube honors (follower_range, creator_language, has_email), but leaves limit, sort_by, sort_order, detail_level, and the reference object shape unexplained.

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 ('create a creator search') plus the return shape ('compact creator summaries'), and uses the remainder to differentiate the three search modes by platform. It does not explicitly position itself against siblings such as get_search_results or get_creator, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly routes mode selection: keyword for YouTube, semantic/reference for TikTok/Instagram. It also names hard exclusions (YouTube reference search and metric sorting unavailable), the per-platform supported arguments and filters, and the prerequisite chain (get_creator_catalog_status → request_creator_catalog_enrichment) with the 409 signal that triggers it.

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