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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and discloses rich behavior: the scoring formula, caps for NO-GO and GO-WITH-CAUTION, daily-limit consumption for asset checks, that junk leads are skipped, the pending return shape, and the exact retry pattern with run_id. These are exactly the side effects and constraints an agent needs.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and packs necessary detail without filler. It would benefit from lighter paragraph structure or bullets, but every clause earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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 tool of this complexity with a 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the description is thorough on behavior but never describes the final success return shape (fields included by the score result). The pending return is covered, but the normal output remains unspecified, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent to interpret results.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds substantial meaning beyond that: it explains how analyze and wait_seconds interact, reveals the default and max wait, and describes the run_id retry contract, which the schema does not fully convey.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Score a website lead (the Minhelet lead form)'. It immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming the Asset Analyzer and describing the combined scoring logic, so an agent knows this is the only tool that produces a lead-quality plus feasibility score.

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?

It clearly explains the effect of each mode: 'With analyze: true it starts the asset check...', 'Without either, it scores lead quality alone', and the retry flow when pending. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose lead_score over directly calling asset_analyze or asset_result, leaving that relative routing unstated.

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