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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and adds significant detail: it discloses the credit charge (5 credits for a free precheck-skipped contact, 10 from hunters on paid data) and the 402 error when balance is too low. It also recommends previewing before moving to fits. It still omits permissions, reversibility, and full side-effect details, but the cost and error disclosure is well above a minimal description.

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 three tight sentences: purpose first, cost/error second, preview recommendation third. Every sentence adds actionable information and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain all required parameters and key side effects. It covers cost and preview but never explains the required `search_id` parameter, making the definition incomplete for correct invocation. The missing explanation of `search_id` is a material gap.

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%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It mentions one contact implicitly ('id') and the target state via 'Fit', but never explains `search_id` at all and does not describe the `uncertain` or `unfit` enum values. This leaves a required parameter 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?

The description states a specific action and scope: 'Overrides the ICP verdict for one contact,' which maps clearly to setting a contact's group. It distinguishes the tool from its preview sibling by naming `sdr_preview_set_person_group` and indicating when to call it. It stops short of explicitly enumerating all three possible group values in the description itself, leaving part of that to the title/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?

The description gives a concrete usage rule: 'Call sdr_preview_set_person_group first when moving to fits.' That clearly routes the agent to the preview alternative for the Fit case. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or clarify whether preview is also recommended for 'uncertain' and 'unfit', so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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