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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it consumes the plan's monthly prospect-search quota (a rate-limit disclosure), requires sign-in to a geoa account (an auth prerequisite), and clarifies that no one is contacted despite readOnlyHint=false. It also discloses the return shape (ranked candidate list + search_id) and the registry-qualified data source, none of which appear in the annotation block.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then mechanics, then quota/auth/return, then the safety caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations verbatim.

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 still tells the agent what comes back (ranked candidate list and search_id), and it covers cost, auth, and data provenance for a mutating, open-world tool. Combined with the fully documented 4-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it frames industry+city as the discovery path and seed_domains as a replacement ('or your own seed domains'), clarifying the mutually exclusive usage modes. It does not cover the country default or value set, which the schema already handles.

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 and resource ('Find B2B prospect companies') plus the mechanism ('via geoa Radar') and the two discovery modes. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings geoa_radar_enrich and geoa_radar_score_prospects, and it even names the handoff artifact (search_id) that selects the scoring sibling.

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 clear usage context: discovery by industry+city, or supply your own seed_domains instead. It also signals the follow-on step by saying it returns a search_id for scoring, and sets expectations with 'Research only'. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a named sibling referral, so not a 5.

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