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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds two things not in structured data — deterministic newest-first ordering and that the call is 'Free' (no credit cost). It stops short of saying how pagination or truncation behaves for large histories.

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?

A single colon-anchored sentence that front-loads the resource, then ordering, then returned fields, then cost. Nothing redundant and no filler.

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 no-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back, in what order, and at what cost, while annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is limit/pagination semantics, which is minor but real.

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?

There is one parameter (limit) at 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — and it says nothing about page size, the 1–50 range, the default of 10, or whether more results exist beyond the limit. The only clue is 'newest first'.

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 ('the account's prospect searches') plus exactly what each row contains: status, request, result count. That is far more informative than the title, and 'list' vs the sibling 'prospects_get' is separable by name, though the description never names the single-item alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: it reads as the browsing entry point for prior searches, and 'newest first' hints at recency-focused use. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prospects_get for a single search, and no indication of when a new search (prospects_find) is preferred over reviewing history.

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