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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the significant behavior that this is a 'paid request,' implying a cost or side effect. But it leaves ambiguous whether the request is merely prepared or actually executed/purchased, and offers no detail on authorization, reversibility, or rate limits. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a paid tool.

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. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds meaning. It could include more detail, but as a structure it is tight and efficient, just missing some information that would make it more valuable.

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 paid operation with no annotations and no output schema details, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what happens after the request is prepared, what a 'compact sales-ready lead' entails, or how this tool relates to siblings like enrich_company or find_decision_maker. An agent cannot fully determine side effects, return semantics, or invocation prerequisites from this description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only parameter names, the description must compensate. It does map the two parameters to 'known company and function,' providing a basic conceptual link. However, it gives no format, examples, or acceptable values, and does not clarify what 'function' means in this context (e.g., job function vs. business function). This is insufficient compensation for the low 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 states a specific action – 'Prepare a paid request' – and a specific resource: 'one compact sales-ready lead at a known company and function.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_people or find_decision_maker by focusing on a sales-ready lead rather than search or specific roles. However, 'prepare a paid request' is slightly ambiguous about whether the tool returns the lead or just creates a request, preventing a 5.

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 phrase 'at a known company and function' implies the tool is appropriate when the user already has these two inputs and wants a sales-ready lead. This gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the exclusions needed for a 5.

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