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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it is paid, multi-domain, reuses map_csc_products, and ranks by a specific formula. It does not describe response formats or potential side effects, but with the annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: one defines the function and ranking logic, one notes operational constraints (multi-domain, paid), and one differentiates from siblings. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool produces (prioritized leads). It covers input variants, cost, and relationship to other tools. It lacks explicit return format details, but for a ranking tool with four well-described parameters, this is not a critical gap.

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%, with each parameter (brand, format, domains, force_refresh) already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: ranking a brand's portfolio or explicit domain set into prioritized CSC sales leads, with a specific ranking criterion (product-gap value × severity). It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools map_csc_products and batch_scan, making its unique role unmistakable.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, naming map_csc_products and batch_scan and clarifying the difference (per-domain mapping vs. raw scores vs. this ranking tool). It also notes that it is multi-domain and paid, which are key operational considerations for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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