check_creator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the call returns immediately with a check_id, no scheduler is created, and delivery history only advances on a complete reviewed report. It omits permission requirements and whether checks can expire or be cancelled.

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, each earning its place, with the core action and required follow-up front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must carry heavy load. It covers the async flow and the check_id return, but leaves all three parameters semantically undefined and says nothing about authentication or failure modes, so it is only partially complete.

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 0% across three parameters. The phrase 'creator-name/ID/profile check' loosely hints at the creator and profile parameters, but refresh_identity is never mentioned and no format, default, or effect is explained. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (start) and resource (creator-name/ID/profile check) and clarifies it is asynchronous, returning a check_id. It distinguishes itself from the reporting sibling by naming get_report, though it does not clarify how it differs from resolve_creator_from_videos.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to poll get_report after starting, giving a concrete next step. However, it provides no condition for when to prefer this over the sibling resolve_creator_from_videos, so exclusions are absent.

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