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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a paid call ($0.15 via x402), no account or API key needed, and describes the data sources used (EU company enrichment, domain age). It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only scoring API, this is sufficient.

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 purpose and cost. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, output format, cost, and target audience. It lacks details on error handling, but overall it is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'domain' is fully covered by the schema description. The tool description adds context that the domain is used for lead scoring, but this is already implied by the purpose. The value added is minimal beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: scoring and qualifying B2B leads from a domain. It specifies the output (0-100 score with hot/warm/cold band and reasons) and target audience (EU/NL companies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'enrich' or 'assess'.

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 provides explicit usage context: for sales and lead-gen agents prioritizing EU/NL companies. It mentions pricing and payment method. However, it does not explicitly contrast when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enrich' or 'assess', though the context implies use for lead scoring.

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