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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication ('seller_signals' scope API key) and the notable commercial behavior (partner brokerages get these at no per-lead fee, referral fee on close), plus that output is scored and deduplicated. Missing pagination/latency details but the auth and fee model are meaningful disclosures beyond the schema.

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 dense sentences cover resource, signal types, geography, return shape, auth, and the fee model without filler. Front-loaded with the core capability; the commercial terms are secondary but relevant. Slightly information-dense rather than padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately characterizes the return (scored, deduplicated leads with address + executor contact). Auth scope and the fee model are covered. Coverage of when-to-use-vs-siblings is the remaining gap, but the core operational facts for calling it correctly are present.

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 all six parameters (limit, state, county, min_score, since_days, signal_types) are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (retrieve) and a proprietary resource (seller-intent signals) with concrete signal categories enumerated (probate, distressed, expired listings, FSBO) and geography. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like scout.search_leads or scout.search_listings because it names proprietary signal types rather than generic leads/listings.

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 this is the correct tool for seller-intent prospecting but never states when to prefer it over scout.search_leads or scout.find_agent, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage is inferable from the signal-type list but not explicitly guided.

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