find_similar_creators

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: 'Costs 0.01 credits per creator returned' (cost transparency), 'Always sorted by relevancy (no custom sort)' (sorting behavior), and 'No CSV export exists' (limitation). These are not present in the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint) and help the agent set expectations.

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 not overly long but contains redundancy: 'Always sorted by relevancy (no custom sort)' and 'Results are returned in relevance order, which is meaningful' convey largely the same information. The third sentence could be removed, making the description less efficient.

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?

The description covers key non-obvious behaviors (cost, fixed sort, no CSV export) that are not evident from the schema or annotations. The schema itself handles parameter details and includes a note about platform-specific filters, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, it does not mention pagination or how to specify the reference creator, though those are covered by schema descriptions.

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%, with every parameter (page, limit, filters, platform, filter_key, filter_value) having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given high schema coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Find creators similar to a specified creator.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it differentiates from sibling tools like discover_creators by emphasizing the 'similar to a specified creator' aspect. Additional traits like fixed relevancy sorting further clarify its purpose.

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 when to use the tool (when you have a specific creator and want similar ones) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like discover_creators. There is no exclusion or comparison to sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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