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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: results are free until approved, the call requires user consent, it runs asynchronously in the background, and it is rate-limited to a few per day. It does not state what record is created or any permission requirements, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the retrieval target (list_suggestions) and the quota/approval caveats packed in without padding. Dense but every clause carries information.

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 an async, multi-param request tool with no output schema, the description covers where results land, that they are free until approved, consent requirements, and rate limits. Remaining gaps (the region parameter's purpose, timing of results) are minor for an agent deciding whether and how 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?

Schema coverage is 57%, and the description adds business-level meaning for the main axes (short description, industry, size range, country, lookalike domains from your own customers). It does not clarify 'region' (the one undocumented param) or bounds like employee min/max, so it partially, not fully, compensates for the coverage gap.

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: asking Intakra to find/prospect companies matching a profile. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_accounts (existing accounts) and add_accounts (manual add) by framing this as a discovery/request operation that produces suggestions.

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?

Gives concrete operating conditions: 'Ask the user before calling' and 'a few requests a day at most,' and routes the agent to list_suggestions for retrieving results. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' contrast against other discovery siblings, but the context is clear.

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