audience_overlap

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral details: the 1-credit cost per request and the output format suited for visual summaries. It does not contradict the annotations. The addition of cost and visualization behavior goes beyond the structured annotations, though it stops short of explaining pagination or error handling.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence, then adding output details, cost, and visualization guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the content is easy to scan.

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 and the tool has only two well-documented parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the operation, constraints, cost, and provides guidance on how to interpret and visualize results, which is especially helpful for an analytical 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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for both 'platform' and 'creators'. The description also reinforces the 2-10 creator limit and same-platform constraint, but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema has. Given the complete schema, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('audience overlap'), along with the scope ('between 2-10 creators on the same platform'). It also lists the output metrics (total followers, unique followers, overlap percentages). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on discovery, enrichment, or other audience metrics.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for analyzing overlap between 2-10 creators on the same platform. It also notes the credit cost and suggests visualization types based on creator count. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as for single-creator analysis or cross-platform comparisons.

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