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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real side-effect detail: dedup by domain/userId leaves the original list untouched and applies a lista:<nome> tag, leads without a website are stored as SUSPEITO, and every lead is auto-assigned to a list with a default name. What is missing is failure behavior (what happens on the 101st lead, partial-batch errors) and idempotency guarantees.

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?

The resource identity and batching cap are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct operational fact (eligibility rule, verification path, dedup semantics, list assignment). It is dense but not padded; the emoji header is the only low-value element.

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 batch-mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: volume limit, per-lead validation rule, dedup outcome, and status assignment. It stops short of telling the agent what the call returns (counts of imported vs. skipped) or how it fails when constraints are violated, which would matter for a 100-item bulk write.

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 the schema already explains leads, list_name, and target_user_id. The description still contributes beyond it by stating the 100-lead cap on the leads array and reinforcing the default list-name fallback and admin-only restriction on target_user_id, which are call-shaping constraints rather than restatements.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Importa leads em lote para o Garimpo Leads', página /domain-checker) and immediately distinguishes this from siblings like list_domain_checker_leads, update_domain_checker_lead, and tag_domain_checker_leads. An agent knows this is the bulk-ingest entry point for the domain checker without opening the schema.

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?

It states concrete preconditions for use: max 100 leads per call and each lead must have at least website OR email. It also explains the downstream flow ('Analisar Todos' for website leads; SUSPEITO status for those without). It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. search_google_places as the source, or enrich_domain_checker_leads as the follow-up), but the context for using it is clear.

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