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 useful behavior beyond that: it documents ordering by signal count and recency. However, it does not disclose response shape, pagination behavior, or how filters interact, which would add further transparency.

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 efficient sentences with the core purpose front-loaded: 'Search the saved prospects in the account.' The filter list is compact, and the ordering statement earns its place. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid high-level overview but leaves notable gaps: it does not state whether filters are ANDed, explain return fields, mention pagination beyond the schema, or clarify value formats (e.g., country codes, enrichment status values). It is adequate for tool selection but not fully complete for invocation without schema inspection.

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 only 50%, so the description carries some burden for parameter meaning. It does map several parameters to plain language ('hasEmail' becomes 'whether an email address is known', 'enrichmentStatus' becomes 'enrichment state', 'notContacted' becomes 'whether they have been contacted'). However, it adds little beyond restating the parameter concepts and omits offsets, limit, and search-text semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('saved prospects in the account'), which distinguishes it from siblings like find_leads_from_signals that operate on signal-derived leads rather than saved prospects. It also enumerates the available filter dimensions, making the tool's scope 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 makes the intended use clear: searching and filtering saved prospects. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the phrase 'saved prospects' and the filter list provide enough context to route an agent correctly relative to the sibling tools.

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