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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the 5-credit cost and the output format constraint, but does not disclose potential network failures, rate limits, or side effects beyond credit consumption. It is partially transparent but not exhaustive.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core function and output compatibility; the second gives the usage trigger and cost. Information is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, output format, usage trigger, and cost. It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites, but these are minor for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The only parameter, url, has 100% schema description coverage with an example ('acme.com'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it neither enriches nor detracts from the parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool reads a company's website and drafts an ideal customer profile, explicitly naming the output format as 'the values icp_match accepts'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing icp_match directly, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger: 'Start here when a user says find events for my company'. This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it does not enumerate alternatives or state when not to use it. The trigger is clear enough for correct selection.

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