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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns 5 leads with contact info in under 60 seconds, supports 24 trades and any US city, has a daily limit of 3 free searches per IP, and requires no authentication. It does not detail error handling or rate limit enforcement, but covers the main traits.

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 extremely concise: four short sentences totaling under 40 words, with the core action and output in the first two sentences. No wasted words.

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?

While the description covers the high-level purpose and constraints, it lacks detail on the output format (e.g., structure of lead data) and does not mention error conditions or edge cases. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by specifying that the tool supports 24 trades and any US city, and clarifies that the output is 5 qualified leads. This goes beyond the schema.

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's purpose: lead generation for contractors and local service businesses by providing a trade type and city to get 5 qualified leads with contact info. It is distinct from siblings like 'leadsignal_generate' by mentioning specific outputs and limits.

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 implies usage by saying 'provide a trade type and city' and mentions '3 free searches per day per IP' and 'No auth', but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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