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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: candidates arrive enriched, the signal is attached, the verbatim quote is included, and the operation counts against the import quota. This goes beyond the annotations, though duplicate handling and idempotency are not addressed.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by relevant input characteristics and a quota warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 small tool, the core call is well specified, but the description omits what listId does, how duplicates are handled, and what the tool returns after a successful import. Since there is no output schema, some of this information would be useful for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 already documents tokens and signalType (67% coverage). The description reinforces that signalType comes from find_leads_from_signals, but adds no meaning for listId, the only undocumented parameter. It provides moderate but not complete parameter clarification.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save') and a clear resource ('candidates returned by find_leads_from_signals'), which immediately differentiates it from find_leads_from_signals and add_leads_from_urls. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 strongly implies usage context: this is the tool to persist the candidates that find_leads_from_signals returns. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the source-tool reference provides clear selection context.

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