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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context about gating: 'Locked people show only their signals until unlocked.' This is useful and not in annotations, but it doesn't explain pagination, rate limits, or output format. A 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and ordering, then add the gating behavior. No wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return concept and gating, but omits pagination behavior, default sorting beyond 'strongest first', and how filters interact. With 7 parameters and partial schema coverage, more context could be provided. Adequate but with gaps.

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 43%, so half the parameters lack documentation. The description doesn't clarify parameters like 'page', 'query', or 'source', so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. However, some parameters (tier, min_fit, new_today) have schema descriptions. Baseline 3 given mixed coverage and no additional parameter detail in the description.

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 resource ('People (or companies) showing buying signals') and notes ordering ('strongest first'). It's clear what the tool returns. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_intent_lead or get_intent_results, so it falls short of 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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance. The description doesn't mention alternatives like get_intent_lead (single lead) or search_prospects, nor does it say when not to use this tool. Usage must be inferred.

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