Draft brand profile

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

Beyond annotations, description reveals it consumes 0 ScrapeCreators credits, can save a brand (with default behavior), and importantly, it cannot ask the user for clarification, placing the verification burden on the caller. No contradictions with 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?

The description is well-structured, starting with the core purpose, followed by credit cost, then an important caveat in all caps. It is moderately lengthy but each sentence adds necessary context. Could be slightly tighter but still good.

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 the tool has 5 parameters with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers all essential behavioral aspects, including edge cases (domain resolving to wrong company) and workflow (use save:false). It leaves no gaps for safe usage.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the interplay between parameters (e.g., domain vs. description, socialHandle+platform) and the save behavior (default, overwrite, never). This is more than just repeating schema.

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 verb 'onboard' and the resource 'brand profile', lists specific input sources (domain, description, social handle), and explains the output format (an object with name, products, logo). It differentiates from sibling tools like list_brands and scrapecreators_fetch by focusing on creation versus listing or scraping.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (to onboard a brand) and a critical caveat: the user must verify the returned name against the intended brand, with advice to re-draft if wrong and use save:false until confirmed. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives but the context is clear.

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