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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds only the shape of the result (an A–F letter grade) and the distinction from behavioral scoring; it says nothing about weighting behavior, thresholds, or how partial answers affect the grade—context the schema's weight values only partially imply.

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?

Two short sentences with the functional definition front-loaded and no padding. The trailing URL is a mild promotional element rather than agent-relevant instruction, which keeps it from a 5.

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 deterministic, single-output calculator with no output schema, the description supplies the essential contract: firmographic inputs in, A–F grade out. With 100% schema coverage on all five enum parameters and full annotation coverage, the remaining gap (how the weighted criteria combine into the grade) is minor.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter carries an enum plus its weight (25/20/20/20/15), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g., what "partial" means for a given criterion), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 transformation (firmographic fit criteria → A–F lead grade) rather than restating the name, so the agent knows exactly what the tool computes. It also carves out a conceptual boundary against "behavioral lead scoring," which helps distinguish it from scoring-adjacent siblings like lead_scoring_logic_architect. It stops short of naming any sibling tool by name, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 clause "distinct from behavioral lead scoring" implies when this tool is the right choice (static firmographic fit, not engagement-based scoring), which is a useful routing hint. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives such as lead_quality_intent_evaluator or mql_calculator, so the agent must infer selection.

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