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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world behavior are covered structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that – the prospect is scored on creation – but says nothing about duplicate handling, scoring criteria, or auth/permission requirements.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though extremely sparse for the amount of behavior it needs to convey.

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 mutation tool with three mandatory, fully undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the two ID parameters and the result of scoring. It leaves the agent guessing about scope and outcome, which is inadequate for this complexity.

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 0% for all three required parameters. The description only obliquely implies a URL ('page', 'by URL' in the title) and gives no meaning for projectId or siteId, so half the parameter surface is undocumented anywhere.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Add') with a specific resource ('link prospect') and adds an extra action ('score it'), so it is clearly not a list/read tool. However, it never differentiates itself from adjacent siblings such as start_prospect_discovery or reject_prospect, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the automatic discovery flow (start_prospect_discovery) or unblock_prospect_domain. The agent gets no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, only a bare imperative.

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