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

The description adds valuable non-schema behavior by disclosing the exact credit cost model and the evidence-URL aspect of hiring signals, extending the sparse annotations. However, annotations mark the operation as destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, yet the description does not clarify any mutating/destructive side effects beyond credit consumption, leaving a transparency gap.

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 carry the core resource, the signal types, and a precise pricing rule with zero filler or redundancies. The key purpose is front-loaded and the cost detail is placed second.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not state what the tool returns for each signal type or how results are grouped by company, which the agent must infer. It also omits operational details like partial failures and whether the signals parameter is required, despite providing the credit cost.

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 only 33%, so the description must define the parameters. It repeats the signal enum values and adds detail only for hiring; it never explains whether signals is an optional filter, what the other signals mean, or how company_domains/idempotency_key interact with the scan and costing.

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 identifies the tool as returning buying-intent signals for supplied company domains and enumerates the signal types, which distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like find_companies and find_posts. It lacks an explicit contrast statement, but the resource and signal list make the purpose 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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as enrich, find_companies, or find_leads. The only contextual hint is that it operates on company domains and costs credits; there is no when-not-to-use or alternative routing.

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