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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the surface reads production or an explicitly opted-in local database and that it 'never silently answers from local data.' This provenance guarantee goes beyond the annotation hints, though the promised 'contract' is left vague.

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 key purpose and alternatives are front-loaded, but the middle paragraph of use-case prose is longer than needed and the third paragraph opens with the grammatically unclear fragment 'Leads with what the buyer gets and how to act on it.' Useful content is present, but it is not tightly edited.

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 zero-parameter describe tool with an output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers what the response contains, the intended audience, database provenance, the contract, available tools, and the relevant sibling workflows. The only weakness is phrasing, not missing substance.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema has nothing to document. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, the description cannot add parameter meaning; it appropriately focuses on output and behavior instead.

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 opening clause states the tool returns what GoodLeads is, who buys it, and how records are built, and explicitly says to call it 'to explain or vet us.' It also distinguishes itself from pricing siblings by directing pricing workflows to interpret_list and quote_list, so an agent can tell scope apart from siblings.

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 description gives an explicit when-to-use ('call this to explain or vet us') and an explicit alternative for a closely related task ('to price a list, start with interpret_list') plus a follow-up workflow ('read the free count from quote_list'). It also instructs agents not to disqualify an owner based on this description alone, clarifying when to leave the tool.

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