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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral detail beyond them: passing list_name returns the list's own audience and shows the effective ICP as the account config overlaid with the list config — a merge/override rule an agent could not infer from the schema. It omits auth/rate-limit notes, but those are minor for a read.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core payload list comes first, then the list_name behavior, then the downstream relevance. The '🎯 GARIMPO LEADS' branding prefix and some jargon do not earn their space, but the rest is compact with no restated 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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so by enumerating the ICP fields and the A/B/C scoring relevance. The only gaps are the implicit behavior when list_name is omitted (presumably account-level config only) and the admin-only context for target_user_id, which the schema already covers.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema for list_name by spelling out the overlay semantics (account ICP with the list ICP on top) and that it also reveals the list's audience; target_user_id's admin-only restriction is left to the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (show the ICP config) and enumerates exactly what it exposes: target sectors, UFs, weights, and requirements like active CNPJ, WhatsApp requirement, and 'no site' as a signal. It also explains the list_name variant (list audience plus layered ICP), so an agent can distinguish it from update_icp_config, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: it says the config 'is what decides the A/B/C bands of the unique score', which hints at when to consult it, but there is no explicit 'use this when…', no exclusion of alternatives like update_icp_config, and no statement that it must be read before scoring or enriching leads.

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