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

Crucially, it provides behavioral context beyond the schema, specifically noting that the classification is 'AI, not billed' and detailing the return condition ('Returns the run, or null when nothing is unchecked'). This is highly actionable information.

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 highly concise, utilizing a single sentence to cover the function, the AI categorization, the potential outcome (keyword suggestions), and the return value/exit condition.

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?

For a tool with a single input (search_id), the description is fully complete. It defines the input's purpose and the predictable nature of the output, including the null possibility.

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?

Although the schema is minimal, the description contextualizes the single required parameter ('search_id') by explaining that it refers to the 'unchecked contacts of a search,' giving the user functional meaning to the UUID that the schema alone does not provide.

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 tool explicitly states its function: classifying unchecked contacts as Fit, Uncertain, or Not a fit. By referencing the 'Check now' feature on the People page, it clearly differentiates its purpose from other complex ICP or search execution tools in the sibling list.

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?

While the description clearly states the functionality, it doesn't explicitly advise when to use it versus other highly related sibling tools like sdr_icp_qa_review. It is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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