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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on the highest-risk trait: it discloses the $0.02/page x402 cost on Base and the free-on-miss settlement rule (charged only if ≥1 company returns). It also discloses the return shape. It stops short of stating whether payment must be pre-authorized for the first call or how page/per_page interplay affects cost.

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, zero waste, and the cost model is front-loaded so an agent sees the billing implication before anything else. Nothing in the text is redundant with the name or with the schema's own description.

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 an 8-param, zero-required search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, return contents, and cost behavior — enough to call it correctly. Residual gaps are pagination semantics (page capped at 5, per_page at 25) and whether results are deduplicated or ranked, which live only in the schema.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters; the description adds real meaning beyond it by attaching a per-page price to the 'page' parameter and framing the filters as prospecting dimensions. It does not clarify per_page cost interaction or the employee_ranges format beyond the schema example.

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 and resource — 'Discover target accounts' — and enumerates the filters (name, keywords, domain list, locations, headcount) plus what comes back: firmographic summaries, primary domains, and next_step links. An agent can tell from this that it is a company-prospecting search, distinct from person search and from the enrich_* siblings.

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 prospecting framing ('discover target accounts') implies when to reach for it, and the mention of next_step links to firmographics or people search hints at the follow-on flow. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over enrich_organization or search_people, nor does it state prerequisites for calling a paid endpoint.

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