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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: bounded per run, one run at a time, and billable credits (5, or 10 from hunters on paid data) when contacts move to Fit and are used. It still omits permissions, reversibility, and outcome details.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears immediately, followed by operational and cost constraints. The quoted label and parenthetical add slight noise but remain efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, scope, concurrency, and cost, which is useful for a run tool with no annotations or output schema. It still lacks return/outcome details and prerequisites, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

There is one required parameter, search_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'this search's' implies the parameter identifies the search whose Uncertain contacts are re-judged, but it does not explain the UUID format or required nature.

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 verb and resource: re-judges this search's Uncertain contacts. The 'Re-check now' framing distinguishes it from an initial ICP review, though it does not explicitly name the sibling sdr_icp_review.

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?

Usage is implied by 're-judges this search's Uncertain contacts' and 'Re-check now', but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative such as sdr_icp_review.

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