discover_creators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds important behavioral context: it costs 0.01 credits per creator returned, and results are returned in a meaningful API ranking order. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent plan behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by cost and ranking behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite the complex schema (especially the large DiscoveryFilters object), the description covers the essential action, cost, and ranking behavior. The output schema handles return values, and the input schema already documents filters and pagination, so the description is adequate. It could mention that filters are available, but the schema compensates.

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% – all 7 parameters (platform, page, limit, filters, sort_by, ai_search, sort_order) already have descriptive text in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions the overall cost and ranking, which are not tied to individual parameters. Baseline 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 action ('Search the Influencers.club database to discover creators/influencers') and the return value ('Returns profiles with basic stats'). It uses a specific verb and resource, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like discover_creators_to_file or find_similar_creators, so it falls 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discover_creators_to_file, find_similar_creators, or enrich_by_handle. It doesn't mention exclusions or context like 'use this for quick discovery' or 'use discover_creators_to_file for exporting results.' The cost and ranking notes are behavioral, not usage direction.

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