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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the credit cost (1 credit per returned lead), the data sources fused into the score, the allowed signal_types, and the live-state constraint. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination/return-shape details.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ranking, then data provenance, then coverage, then cost. Every sentence carries operational information; nothing is 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 3-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (scored venues with signal_types), cost, and state availability. It could say more about response shape or behavior when a state has no leads, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by defining what the score actually measures (fused multi-signal venues) and what signal_types values appear on leads. It reinforces rather than merely repeats min_score's semantics.

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?

Specific verb (find) plus resource (restaurants/bars about to open) plus the ranking key (opening_score 0-100) and the underlying data fusion (liquor licenses, food permits, new-business filings). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like venue_signals or watch_area, which are not prospecting tools.

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 gives a clear condition (a state, from the live-state list) and explicitly routes the agent to the `coverage` sibling for the authoritative state list. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this versus venue_signals or watch_area, so it lacks full alternative routing.

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