Profile a creator

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description goes far beyond that with credit cost, hold-and-charge-on-success semantics, hourly rate limit, one-hour cache reuse, ~20s latency, and get_creator_profile fallback. Null-vs-zero handling and the untrusted_content warning add real behavioral context. Minor deduction only because the relationship between idempotentHint=true and the 'held at the start' charge isn't fully reconciled.

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?

Despite being dense, it is front-loaded with the payload then moves to input formats, cost/latency, and response fields. The main waste is the credit price stated twice ('20 credits, held at the start' and 'Price: 20 credits per call'), which is redundant padding in an otherwise tight paragraph.

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 must explain returns and does: per-video metrics, median and x_median, top flags, author fields, cadence, display_markdown/display_hint, and untrusted_content. Cost, timing, polling, caching, and failure-cost behavior are all covered, so an agent can call this correctly without further information.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates instagram.com/<handle>, /reel/<code>, /p/<code>, tiktok.com/@<handle>, /video/<id>, and vm.tiktok.com/<code>, plus the negative case (YouTube refused). The schema's pattern/maxLength constraints are complemented with the semantics an agent actually needs.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Profile a creator from a link') and immediately enumerates the return payload (12 videos, views/likes/comments/shares, median views, x_median flagging, author fields, cadence). This distinguishes it from siblings like quote_creator_profile (pricing) and get_creator_profile (polling).

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 states accepted URL shapes per platform, that a video link profiles its author, that YouTube is refused, that quote_creator_profile should be used first for a price quote, and that get_creator_profile with wait_seconds is the polling path. It also names the cache window where a repeat call is free, which is genuine routing guidance.

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