Signal Leads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned content (price, what a lead includes, payment link, required checkout inputs), which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about whether the tool is a pure read, whether it has side effects, or whether pricing/availability can change.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the offering details and ends with the usage trigger; no filler. The parenthetical is long but every clause carries content, so the density is defensible.

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-argument, no-output-schema informational tool, the description covers what the tool surfaces and roughly when to use it, which is close to sufficient. The main residual gap is sibling differentiation against signal_leads_results and usage_and_upgrade.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The mention of 'website, target customer' describes checkout inputs rather than tool parameters, so it neither helps nor harms parameter understanding.

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 explains the subject matter the tool surfaces (the offer, price, payment link, checkout fields) but never states a verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves' for the tool itself, so the action is inferred rather than stated. It reads like a description of the offering rather than of the tool's operation, and it does not distinguish itself from signal_leads_results.

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?

It gives one condition: 'Use it when a user wants sales leads.' That is implied usage, but it is ambiguous because the sibling signal_leads_results presumably serves the same intent, and no distinction or exclusion is offered. The agent cannot tell from this text which of the two to pick.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully signals that only a 'finished' order is retrievable and that the response is JSON, but it says nothing about authentication, token expiry, or what happens if the order is still pending — real gaps for a token-based fetch.

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 front-loaded sentence with no preamble or filler; the verb and resource lead and the input requirement follows immediately.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (JSON) and where the input comes from. Only auth expectations and error behavior are absent, which is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the schema already defines the accepted 'link' formats (full URL or bare token). The description adds only the provenance of the value (thank-you page or email), which is mildly helpful but does not extend the technical semantics. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (a finished Signal Leads order as JSON), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name either sibling (signal_leads_offer, usage_and_upgrade), so the boundary with the offer-side tool is left to inference rather than stated.

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 implied by the input precondition: call this when you hold a results link or token from the buyer's thank-you page or email. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing advice against the sibling tools, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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

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

With no annotations or output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral context: the free tier is capped at 50 calls/day, the call itself is 'not metered' (so it does not consume quota), and the scope is limited to today and the caller's key or IP. It does not describe the response shape or what happens once the cap is hit, but the quota and non-metering disclosures are genuinely useful.

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 short, front-loaded sentences that each carry information: what is returned, the pricing hook, and the quota rule. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 read with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (usage plus upgrade link), the caller's identity basis, and the free-tier limit. It only lacks detail on error/limit-exceeded behavior in a context where the schema adds nothing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The hint that identity comes from 'your key or IP' is a small bonus for an argument-less tool.

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 two concrete outputs: today's usage for the caller's key or IP, plus a one-time upgrade link. It is clearly distinct from the sibling lead-generation tools, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs quota/usage status or an upgrade path. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, which is low-stakes here given only two unrelated siblings.

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