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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does a solid job: it reveals the proprietary nature of the data, that results are scored and deduplicated, that an API key with a specific scope is required, and even the commercial terms for partner brokerages. It does not cover rate limits or exact response shape, but for a read-oriented tool this is strong context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains reasonably compact across four sentences. The first two sentences earn their place; the auth and pricing sentences add useful invocation and business context, though the referral-fee detail is somewhat tangential to actually calling the tool correctly.

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 six optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what the tool returns, where it operates, what auth is needed, and the key output fields. The main missing piece is explicit guidance on how this compares to sibling lead-related tools, but an agent can still call it correctly.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters at 100% coverage, so the description is not required to compensate. The description does reinforce the signal_types concept by listing examples, but it adds no meaning beyond what the schema's enums and parameter descriptions already provide. 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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a well-defined resource ('Flika's proprietary seller-intent signals'), then enumerates the signal categories (probate, distressed, expired listings, FSBO). It also names the exact output contents—scored, deduplicated leads with property address and executor contact—which clearly distinguishes it from generic lead-search tools.

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 to use the tool: when an agent needs seller-intent signals in SC, GA, or FL. It also states the auth-scope prerequisite. However, it never explicitly routes the agent away from siblings like search_leads, purchase_lead, or subscribe_lead_feed, so the selection guidance relies on inference.

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