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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), yet the description adds real behavioral context: what is returned (dated proof, links, rough time frame, missing accounts, accounts without eligible signals) and an important epistemic caveat that public events suggest investigation but do not confirm need, budget or intent. It stops short of covering pagination or latency behavior.

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?

Front-loads the user questions it answers, then explains ranking, output, caveats and scope in tight sequence. The nested parenthetical about the account score is slightly dense but each sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it names the evidence returned (dated proof, links, time frame) and the edge cases (missing accounts, ineligible signals). Scope limits are stated. Only pagination/default behavior is left implicit.

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 both parameters (limit, domains) are already documented. The description only restates that optional domains restrict the list and omits any mention of limit, adding essentially nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource: rank tracked accounts by saved open opportunities and an account score. The parenthetical explains the scoring dimensions (fit, timing, reach, 0-100). It does not name a sibling to distinguish itself from, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Opens with concrete trigger phrasings ('who should I target', 'are these companies showing buying signals?') and closes with exclusions ('does not run fresh research or contact anyone'), which implies alternatives like score_buying_signal_evidence. No sibling is named explicitly, so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

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