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

Beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description discloses significant behavioral traits: it counts against the monthly analysis quota, is slow ('expect up to a few minutes'), and enforces that every retained signal must quote its source verbatim. These are exactly the kind of non-obvious side effects and constraints an agent needs to know.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core pipeline, the second clarifies an important output constraint, and the third flags cost and latency. All information is front-loaded with the main action, and there is zero padding.

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?

The description is complete for a complex side-effecting tool: it covers the pipeline steps, quota, latency, and the source-quoting constraint. The only gap is that with no output schema, it does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., a list of detected signals, updated prospect records, or both), which would fully close the loop for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides; it only refers to 'prospects' generically. No additional semantics for limit or prospectIds are offered, so the schema carries the weight.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run the signal pipeline on prospects', then enumerates the three concrete steps (enrich, read LinkedIn activity, detect buying signals). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_prospects or find_leads_from_signals, which have different verbs and resources.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you want to analyze prospects for buying signals—but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. There is no 'use X for Y instead' guidance, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the sibling list and the stated pipeline.

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