List saved creators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned-field set (niches, followers, engagement rate, price range) and confirms filtering is optional, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result limits for a list operation.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource returned, with zero redundant filler. Slightly terse, but nothing wastes space.

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?

A one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema is a low-complexity case, and the description covers the essentials. However, it omits any indication of result volume, pagination, or default ordering, which an agent listing saved creators would plausibly need.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. Saying 'optional niche filter' usefully conveys that the niche parameter is optional and narrows results, but it adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema's enum, which is self-explanatory.

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 identifies the resource (saved creator profiles) and its attributes, but offers no verb and no differentiation from siblings like get_creator, match_creators, or analyze_creator, which all operate on creators. An agent can guess it lists, but nothing in the text distinguishes it from other creator-reading tools.

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?

'Optional niche filter' is the only usage hint and only describes one parameter, not when to reach for this tool versus get_creator or match_creators. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria for alternatives.

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