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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds context that the tool is AI-driven, returns 'qualified' leads, and provides only 'available' contact information, which hints at possible gaps in results. It does not go deeper into data freshness, result limits, or how qualification is determined, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose before describing inputs and outputs. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool, though phrases like 'qualified local leads' are somewhat generic and could be more specific without hurting conciseness.

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?

Given the low parameter count, full schema description coverage, existing output schema, and annotations indicating a safe read operation, the description covers the essentials. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. The main gap is the lack of rationale for when to use it over siblings, but the overall context is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'trade' and 'city' parameters. The description restates these concepts at a high level without adding syntax details, formats, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool generates leads, identifies the target audience (contractors and local service businesses), and clearly specifies the two inputs (trade type and city) and the output (qualified local leads with contact info). It is clear and distinct from the listed sibling tools, though the output is described in somewhat generic terms rather than with a concrete verb like 'returns a list of.'

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 intended audience and input pattern are implied through 'for contractors and local service businesses' and 'accepts a trade type and city.' However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. With siblings like capability_search and live_price, an agent would have to infer which tool fits a lead-gen request.

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