Leads Fresh DB

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it is a static reference list (no parameters, no filtering), it covers B2C and B2B, some countries are 'on request', and prices come with volume discounts.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and ends with the imperative 'read this before talking about prices'. The long parenthetical enumerations of seven filters and six countries add bulk but carry real content rather than 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 and no parameters, the description must convey what comes back, and it does: filter types, ready countries, price per 1,000 numbers, and volume discounts. It does not state currency, price format, or how 'on request' countries are handled, leaving minor gaps.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline 4 case: there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The prose describes the catalog's dimensions (filters, countries) as fixed content rather than arguments, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 resource (live price list for Fresh DB fresh, filtered phone leads) and enumerates its contents, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the pricing-adjacent siblings get_quote or get_free_sample, so it falls 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?

'Read this before talking about prices' gives an explicit timing cue for use. However, with siblings get_quote and get_free_sample also touching pricing, the description never says when to prefer this catalog over a quote or a free sample, leaving the key routing decision to inference.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the tool only hands back a link and a message, and 'Nothing is sent for the user — they send it themselves' clarifies the human-in-the-loop step. It does not mention limits such as one sample per user or what happens after the Telegram message is sent.

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 sentences with no filler, and the key caveat about who sends the message is placed last as a distinct clarification. The phrasing is slightly run-on 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 a two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description discloses what comes back (a link and a message) and the user action required. Missing only edge cases such as sample eligibility or rate limits.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with detailed enum meanings, so the schema carries the load. The description only restates them as 'your country, your filter' and adds no format or semantics beyond that.

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 the concrete deliverable — a Telegram link plus the message to send — for obtaining a free 200-number sample, which separates it from an ordering flow. It does not name the siblings get_catalog or get_quote, so an agent must infer the boundary from 'to test before ordering' rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

'to test before ordering' gives a clear usage context: use this before committing to a purchase. It stops short of explicit alternatives (e.g. 'use get_quote to price a real order'), so the when-not guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful context that pricing is live, includes volume discounts, and returns an order link while nothing is actually ordered. That reinforces and enriches the safety profile rather than merely repeating it.

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 compact sentences with the core action and the no-side-effect guarantee front-loaded. 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?

For a read-only quote tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and hints at the return value (order link). It could say more about how pricing errors or unsupported countries are surfaced, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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?

The top-level "lists" parameter has no description in the schema, and the description only clarifies that it accepts one or more lists. It says nothing about the 20-list cap, the 1000–50000 quantity steps, or the filter/gender/carrier options, though the nested schema properties document those well.

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 (price) and resource (phone-lead lists), plus scope (live prices, volume discounts) and result (link to order). It doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools, but "Nothing is ordered" makes the quote-vs-order intent unambiguous.

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 implies the workflow (get a quote and an order link) but never says when to use this instead of get_catalog or get_free_sample, nor what prerequisites exist before pricing a list. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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