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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds real context: the cost model (charged once per search, only after the quote is seen) and the retry-safe identity behavior of clientRequestId. It doesn't explain what the destructiveHint implies or what state a call creates, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 the core action front-loaded and each following sentence carrying distinct, non-redundant information (email sourcing, billing model, retry rule). Nothing is wasted.

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 and five required parameters, the description should say what a successful call returns (business records with emails?) and how results are consumed downstream. It conveys the count cap and cost but leaves the return shape and follow-up flow (approve/draft) unstated, which matters for a paid, non-read-only tool.

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. The description reinforces the 'up to 20' bound and the clientRequestId retry semantics, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already documents for credits, pricingVersion, ideal, and area.

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 up to 20 local businesses') plus a distinguishing mechanism (email sourced from each business's own public website). It hints at the quote relationship but never names the sibling soclo_leads_find_quote, so the sibling differentiation stays implicit rather than explicit.

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?

The 'Charged once per search, after the owner has seen the quote' line implies a quote must precede this call and 'Reuse clientRequestId on a retry' gives concrete retry guidance. However, it never explicitly says 'obtain a quote via soclo_leads_find_quote first' or states when-not to use this versus soclo_leads_find_quote, leaving the ordering to inference.

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