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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context: returns company-level leads with contact info, wraps an external API, and mentions result variability. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose, then uses a compact bullet list for parameters. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Could be slightly shorter but remains efficient.

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?

Describes output type and follow-up tool, but lacks details on pagination, limit behavior, or error handling. With 4 parameters and no output schema, it covers main points but misses some operational specifics.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section provides brief, clear explanations for all four parameters with examples (e.g., industry: 'fintech', employee_band: '11-50'). Adds meaning beyond schema structure.

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 clearly states it finds B2B leads matching industry/geography/size filters. It specifies the output (company-level leads with names, domains, contacts) and distinguishes from siblings like enrich_lead_list by noting it as a follow-up step.

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?

The description implies usage context (use before enrichment) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or exclude cases. It mentions 'use enrich_lead_list afterwards', which hints at workflow but lacks explicit guidance.

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