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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the training-knowledge limitation, the $0.06 USDC x402 payment requirement, the error behavior when the payment-signature header is missing, and the role-level scope. This is unusually thorough and honest about the tool's constraints.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose/output, knowledge basis, payment, and error behavior. No filler; the core purpose 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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned components, noting the role-level scope, and specifying payment and error behavior. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including an example query, so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, warranting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Research a sales prospect') and enumerates the exact outputs: company profile, decision-maker role profile, pain points, and outreach angle. It also clarifies the role-level scope and knowledge-based nature, which differentiates it from live-lookup or competitor-focused siblings.

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?

Provides clear usage context: for researching a sales prospect, with an explicit caveat that it is based on training knowledge rather than live lookup, and that it is a paid call. It does not name sibling alternatives or contrast them, so the 'when not to use' guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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