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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly/openWorld/destructive), but the description adds substantial operational context: it reads the stored snapshot only, triggers no provider call, consumes no credits, and makes no CRM change. It further documents freshness.state values (current/stale/refreshing/failed/never_computed) and computed_at, plus the crucial caveat that missing is null on incomplete reads and that inconclusive companies are counted in neither bucket.

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?

It is long and dense, but front-loads the core definition before the caveats, and nearly every sentence carries non-obvious meaning (snapshot semantics, missing-vs-null, overlap_possible, sibling routing). Slightly heavy for a single tool, but not padded.

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?

For a read-only analytical tool with no output schema, the description explains the return shape in detail (TAM/ICP totals, per-slice coverage_pct, by_segment overlap, subscription progress) and warns about the two easiest misreadings. Nothing an agent needs to interpret results correctly is missing.

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%, so level, slice_limit, slice_offset and connection_id are already documented, and the description adds little parameter-level syntax. Its mention of passing a slice key to list_whitespace_companies concerns output consumption rather than input semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource ('how much of the connection's market is missing from the CRM') and enumerates the exact outputs (coverage_pct, by_segment, missing, inconclusive). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_tam and count_crm_records, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings ('how much of my TAM is missing', 'which industries have the most whitespace') and explicit negatives ('NOT get_tam... NOT count_crm_records'). It also routes follow-ups to list_whitespace_companies (via slice key) and get_persona_whitespace, covering both when-to-use and alternatives.

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