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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of the safety profile, and 'Nothing changes' explicitly discloses the non-mutating behavior. It doesn't cover auth requirements, rate limits, or what the dry-run output contains, so it's strong but not complete.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the dry-run guarantee front-loaded ahead of the call-order guidance. Zero waste.

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?

A 10-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to explain the config parameters and what the preview returns. The description covers only three of the fields and says nothing about the previewed result, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to construct a valid dry-run call.

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 only 10% across 10 parameters, including nested apollo_search_config and signal_search_config objects. The description mentions source, daily credit budget, and leads/day but leaves the nested configs, search_interval_minutes, max_total_discovered, and require_email entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific action ('Dry-run of enabling/changing automatic lead discovery') and enumerates the affected settings (source, daily credit budget, leads/day). It effectively separates itself from update_campaign_discovery by being the safe read-only counterpart, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from get_campaign_discovery.

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?

Explicitly says to call it before update_campaign_discovery, and states the condition (whenever discovery is or stays enabled). The alternative and the trigger condition are both named, leaving nothing to inference.

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