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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: no email addresses are returned, names in samples are shortened, free searches are rate-limited per network and per day, and verified emails cost $0.10 each. The rate limit is stated without numbers, which keeps it from being a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and corpus, then the use case, then the caveats. The first sentence is dense with parentheticals and a pricing pitch, but no sentence 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape — and it does, describing counts, ten shortened-name samples, and the explicit absence of emails. What's missing is the form of the response envelope (e.g. whether the order link is a URL or a code), but for a two-parameter read tool this is close to complete.

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 both the `query` sentence format and the `view` enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description mentions sample people but does not explain the `view` switch to companies, so it adds essentially nothing beyond the structured fields — baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource (free search of SLSBMB AI Contacts), states the corpus size, and spells out exactly what comes back (match counts, ten sample people with shortened names). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_pricing or about_slsbmb_ai, which are informational rather than search 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 an explicit use case: 'Use it when someone wants to size a B2B audience or see who matches it.' That covers when to call it, but it never names a sibling alternative or says when NOT to use it (e.g. when the user wants actual emails or pricing).

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