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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a strong job: it discloses credit cost (16 credits), runtime (1–3 min), billing status (ICP research not billed), profile reuse for matching domains, hidden profile creation, and the shape of the return value. It does not explain permission requirements or the meaning of the force parameter, which keeps it just below full transparency.

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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the action and then packs in cost, timing, return shape, polling instructions, and the prerequisite approval in a short sequence. Every sentence adds operational value.

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 complex multi-step workflow tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains cost, timing, returns, and the required follow-up calls. The main gap is the unexplained force parameter and lack of permission/auth context.

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 compensate. It mentions company and website conceptually but gives no format or validation guidance, and it entirely omits the force parameter, leaving one of three parameters unexplained.

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 verb and resource: starting the New SDR research wizard for a company plus website. It also explains the wizard's internal behavior and distinguishes itself from related tools by naming sdr_preview_start_research, sdr_get_research, and sdr_create_search.

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?

It explicitly states the prerequisite ('Only call after the user approved sdr_preview_start_research') and gives the full follow-up sequence: poll sdr_get_research until done, then call sdr_create_search with the research_job_id. This leaves little ambiguity about when and how to use the tool.

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