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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context that the returned ICP is the active one and that it is the basis for sourcing and scoring filters. It does not describe return format or whether the ICP can be empty, but for a read-only getter with no parameters, the description adds adequate context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence enumerates the content of the ICP, and the second explains its role in sourcing and scoring. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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-only getter with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and why it matters. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the return format (e.g., JSON structure), but with no output schema and no parameters, the description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to speak of. The description compensates by explaining what the returned resource contains, which is the only semantic information an agent needs. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that baseline by describing the output content.

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 returns the active ICP and enumerates its components (target roles, industries, countries, company sizes, keywords, exclusions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing the ICP as the filter used by sourcing and scoring, which is a distinct resource. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from tools like get_pipeline_stats or list_prospects.

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 this tool: when an agent needs to know what sourcing and scoring filter against. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signal 'This is what sourcing and scoring filter against' gives a clear use case. There is no exclusion guidance, so it stops at implied usage rather than explicit routing.

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