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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and discharges most of it: delivery channel (Telegram or webhook), rate limit (at most every 15 minutes), and an auth requirement with token format and where to obtain it. It leaves unstated what happens on a duplicate subscription and whether a subscription can be later removed.

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 sentences, no filler, with the delivery/rate contract front-loaded before the operational requirements. Every clause conveys something an agent needs: cadence, channel, auth, and confirmation.

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 7-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns — auth, delivery, dedup cadence, and user consent. Minor gaps remain around duplicate handling and what the call returns, but the calling essentials 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 coverage is 86%, so the schema already explains what each filter (skill, market, remote, min_budget_rub, type) means. The description adds no filter semantics or guidance on combining them, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource: subscribe the user to a search so new matching leads are delivered. The implied contrast with search_leads (one-off query vs persistent subscription) is discernible without opening either schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use (the user wants ongoing delivery of matching leads) plus an explicit procedural prerequisite: 'Ask the user before subscribing.' It stops short of naming search_leads or list_saved_searches as alternatives for one-off or duplicate cases.

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