Match creators to a brand brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it states the operation is deterministic and explainable, and that it 'saves nothing', which confirms the non-persistent behavior. It does not mention prerequisites or limits on how many saved creators are considered.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core ranking action and followed by the scoring components, the explainability guarantee, and the no-side-effects note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 usefully sketches the return shape (per-component scores, reasons, suggested offer), which is the strongest part of the definition. However, for a 7-parameter tool with a nested budget object, it leaves most input semantics and the ordering/limit behavior unexplained, so an agent knows the intent but not the full calling contract.

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 only 43% across 7 parameters, so the description carries a compensation burden it does not meet. It never mentions limit, languages, min_followers, description, or the target_niches override; 'product brief' and 'budget fit' only loosely gesture at product and budget_per_post without adding format or constraint meaning.

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 (ranks), a specific resource (saved creators) and the ranking method (niche fit, audience fit, budget fit) against a product brief. This is clearly distinguishable from list_creators (enumeration), get_creator/analyze_creator (single-creator views) and create_offer (mutation).

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'saved creators' hints that the creator library must already be populated and that a brief is the input, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling tools. An agent can infer the context but is given no routing guidance.

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