Creator contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: per-call credit cost, that failures are free, that the response reports charged/remaining credits, and that max_age_days yields a free cached result. It stops short of describing what an empty or partial result looks like, but the cost/pagination disclosure is well beyond the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, mechanics follow, and the resource list is cleanly bulleted with cost and optional params per entry. A few lines repeat the schema (cursor passed back unchanged, max_age_days for free cached copies), which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does so partially: it states the result reports credits charged and remaining, and that paged resources return a cursor. It does not sketch the shape of the email or profile payloads, but the resource names are self-describing enough that an agent can call this correctly.

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 the schema already documents every parameter, making 3 the baseline. The description does add some routing meaning — that resource-specific arguments go top-level with extras in params, and that cursor must be passed back unchanged — but it defers types and allowed values to the describe tool rather than explaining them here.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource set: finding a creator's other social profiles and published contact emails. The resource enumeration (emails, social_profiles) makes the scope concrete. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like get_profile or the platform-specific tools (instagram, tiktok), which an agent could plausibly pick instead.

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?

It gives clear mechanics for choosing a resource and passing its parameters, plus explicit cursor and caching instructions. What it lacks is when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance: nothing says whether to use this instead of get_profile or the per-platform tools. Usage is implied by the resource list rather than contrasted against siblings.

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