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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'paid request' implying a cost or side effect, but it does not explain what 'preparing a request' entails, whether it actually sends the request, what data is returned, or any rate limits or authentication needs. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that appears to involve a financial or external action.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured; the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and contextual details, but the dimension is about conciseness and structure, which is acceptable here.

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 tool has an output schema, return values need not be described, but the description still fails to cover critical usage context. It does not explain when to use the tool, what a 'paid request' implies, or how the parameters should be provided. With two required parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional context.

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 0%, and the description only references 'company' and 'function' without adding any detail about formats, examples, or constraints. The agent knows the two parameters exist but nothing beyond their names. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, so parameters remain underspecified.

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 action ('prepare a paid request') and a specific target ('one senior decision-maker at a known company and function'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_people and find_lead by emphasizing the paid-request and known-company context, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The verb 'prepare' is slightly ambiguous versus the tool name 'find', but the overall intent is clear.

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 the tool should be used when a company and function are already known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like find_lead or search_people. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing. An agent would have to infer the appropriate context from the 'known company and function' phrasing, which is weak guidance.

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