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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states that no private contact database is queried and includes execution/payment details (0.03 USDC, Base network, URL). This adds transparency without contradicting any annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence explains what the tool does; the second adds a key limitation and the payment/execution link. No redundant words.

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 rich annotations and existing output schema, the description completely covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and execution details. It explains the returned brief's components and the cost/network, leaving no missing context that would impair an agent's decision to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already described in the input schema. The description does not add further parameter-specific guidance, but it indirectly clarifies the 'url' parameter by saying 'Fetch a public website'. This matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a public website') and specifies the output ('a buyer-fit brief with public signals, agentic offer angles, and next actions'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on public lead generation rather than market comparison, agent routes, or DeFi risk scoring.

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 gives clear context for use (public website input, lead brief output) and implicitly notes a limitation ('No private contact database is queried'), suggesting when NOT to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them, so it lacks the full 'when/when-not' guidance of a 5.

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