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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it declares no side effects ('Nothing is created'), itemizes the credit costs (0 for reuse, 15 + 1 = 16 for a build), and states the 24-hour recency window for ICP research reuse.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with what the tool is and what it guarantees, followed by the routing instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; it does so for the key decision points (profile reuse vs. build, ICP research recency). It stops short of describing the full response shape, which leaves some ambiguity about how to render the preview.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description only adds meaning for the website input (it drives the company-profile lookup). The `force` parameter, which overrides the < 24 h reuse rule central to this description, is left entirely to the schema and never referenced in the prose.

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 ('Dry run of the New SDR wizard's first steps') and explicitly distinguishes itself from sdr_start_research as the non-committing preview. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

'Always call before sdr_start_research and show the cost' gives an explicit ordering rule against the named sibling, plus an instruction about what to do with the result. No inference required.

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