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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait the annotations do not: the call consumes the plan's lead scan allowance, which is important quota/billing context for an agent deciding whether to fire it.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the resource-consumption caveat. Very little waste, though there is no room left for the scoping or return-behavior detail an agent would need.

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 open-world, non-read-only operation with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description covers the essentials (on-demand scan, quota impact) but omits whether the scan is synchronous, what it returns, and how siteId/projectId scope the monitored platforms. Adequate but with clear 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 0% for both required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing on siteId or projectId format, scoping, or provenance. The names are self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1, but there is no added semantic value.

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+resource pair: search monitored platforms and score the findings, which is clearly a lead scan rather than a retrieval like list_leads or get_lead. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from neighbouring discovery/scan siblings such as start_prospect_discovery, so it stops 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?

'now' implies an on-demand, immediate execution as opposed to scheduled monitoring, which is the only usage cue. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over start_prospect_discovery or the lead-alert-rule tools, so usage is only implied.

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