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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that scoring 'runs and persists results' and that results are checked afterward, implying no direct result return. It could go further by stating whether the operation is asynchronous or what happens to previously stored scores.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a persistence note and two workflow pointers. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler or repetition.

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 trigger tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete operational loop: find ICP ID, optionally specify leads, run scoring, then retrieve results. Minor gaps exist around empty leadIds semantics and whether execution is synchronous, but the definition is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining leadIds as 'specific leads' and clarifying the optional behavior as 'all leads' when omitted. It also tells the agent to use list_icps to obtain icpId. It does not describe lead ID format or campaign membership constraints, but the core semantics are covered.

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 ('Trigger') and resource ('ICP scoring') with explicit scope ('specific leads or all leads in the campaign'), clearly distinguishing it from related tools like get_icp_scores and list_icps. No ambiguity about what action this tool performs.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite tool (campaignstack_list_icps) and the follow-up tool (campaignstack_get_icp_scores), providing a clear workflow. It does not explicitly contrast this tool against alternatives, but the sequencing makes the intended usage clear.

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