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

The description adds transparency beyond the annotations by disclosing that identity confidence is reported as 'guessed' when no override is supplied, and it also states pricing and payment method. There is no contradiction with the annotations; the tool is correctly marked as not read-only and not destructive.

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 two sentences plus a pricing phrase, front-loading the core function and including only a key behavioral caveat and cost. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

The description provides the essential 'what' and a critical behavioral nuance (identity guessing) while the rich schema handles parameter details. It could have mentioned the parallel checks or the 25-cap explicitly for full completeness, but those are present in the schema, making the description sufficient.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including the company_name_overrides field. The main description only adds a brief hint about the override's effect, so it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Scores') and resource ('domains for buying readiness'), and 'from several of our own signal sources in one call' distinguishes it from single-signal lookups. It is immediately clear what the tool does.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies this is an aggregation tool for scoring multiple signals efficiently, providing a buying-readiness score. However, no explicit alternatives, when-not-to-use instructions, or exclusions are given, so the guidance is only implied.

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