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

Goes well beyond the annotations: each call appends exactly one record, records are visible only to the caller's account, nothing is overwritten (so later stages must be reported as new outcomes), the operation is never billed, and an API key is required with a blank key yielding a signup link. This is consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and adds real operational context.

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-loaded with the WHEN trigger, then arguments, then a worked example, then behavioral caveats — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is a dense single block rather than cleanly separated, which costs a point on structure but not on content.

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 supplies the return shape ({"id": 87}), the authentication requirement and failure behavior, and the append-only semantics. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 only 20%, so the description must carry the load and does: it explains company_id, characterizes outcome as a short self-chosen label (e.g. "meeting_booked"), describes observed_at as the time the event happened, and clarifies that req_key is the optional role that prompted the outreach. A concrete JSON example pins down the expected shapes.

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 opens with a precise trigger and verb+resource: 'WHEN a company you reached through a signal converts ... report it back', and the title/name align with it. It is unmistakably the single write/reporting tool among read-only siblings like find_company, get_open_reqs and who_is_hiring_for.

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 clearly states the condition that should trigger a call (a reply, meeting, or closed deal on a company reached via a signal) and tells the agent to file a later stage as a new outcome rather than updating. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling tool performs a comparable write, so the omission is minor.

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