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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool wraps a data source and returns company-level leads with names, domains, and job-title contacts, plus it lists all parameters with examples. No contradiction 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?

The description is concise yet complete: a one-line summary, a context paragraph explaining the tool's output and follow-up, and a bullet-like args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly states what is returned (company leads with names, domains, contacts). It covers all 4 parameters, explains the tie-in with enrich_lead_list, and mentions the external data source. This is sufficient for a search/read tool.

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 0%, but the description provides full parameter explanations: industry (vertical), country (optional region), employee_band (with specific size-band examples), and limit (range 1-500, default 50). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Find B2B sales leads matching an industry / geography / size filter,' specifying a clear verb and resource with distinct filters. It also mentions using 'enrich_lead_list' afterwards, distinguishing this tool from siblings that focus on enrichment or other data.

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 advises to 'use enrich_lead_list afterwards to add contact info,' providing a clear post-processing step. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use this tool, the context and sibling names imply this is the initial lead-finding step.

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