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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states no external research or outbound actions are performed, returns a draft rather than a final artifact, and discloses price and the need for explicit wallet authorization. This is especially important given destructiveHint=true, though it does not address failure/refund behavior.

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 tightly structured: the purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact—input constraints, output nature, cost, and authorization requirement. There is no filler or 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?

Given the 5-parameter schema with no property descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the core call semantics: input source, output nature, cost, and auth. However, it leaves parameter meanings and return structure largely implicit, so it is merely adequate with clear gaps.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters such as source_text, payment_signature, result_signature, or result_expires. It only generically refers to 'buyer-supplied information' and wallet authorization, which adds little beyond the schema's property names.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Define transparent qualification criteria, weights, unknown handling, and evidence requirements' for a lead qualification rubric. This clearly states what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like lead_score_from_profile, so it misses the top score.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: it works from buyer-supplied information only and explicitly rules out external research or outbound actions. It also notes the output is a draft for human review, implying use cases where a review step is acceptable, but it does not name alternatives or provide explicit exclusion conditions.

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