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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond that: the exact idempotent outcome (existing prospects returned unchanged), the reactivation behavior for archived records, and that no credits are charged. It doesn't cover auth needs or the response shape.

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 compact sentences; the scope and batch limit come first, followed by the two behavioral facts an agent would otherwise get wrong (no-op on existing prospects, reactivation of archived). Nothing is wasted.

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 3-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers cost, idempotency semantics, and batch limits. The only mild gap is what the call returns and any permission requirements.

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 record_ids, record_type, and favorite are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the 1,000-record cap and adds no format or type-selection guidance beyond the schema's examples.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Tracks ... as prospects in the workspace') with a concrete batch bound of 1,000 records. It also defines the state transitions (already-prospects unchanged, archived reactivated), which separates it semantically from prospect_update, though siblings are never named.

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 when the tool applies (adding records to the prospect set, reactivating archived ones) and mentions it is free of credit cost, but it does not say when to choose this over dealmachine_prospect_update or dealmachine_list_add_items, leaving routing to inference.

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