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

Annotations already tell the agent this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the asynchronous background execution model, the polling contract via get_prospect_discovery, and the fact that it consumes the plan's prospecting allowance (a quota/cost signal). It omits what happens to prior results or job-expiry behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the async mechanics and the cost note. No filler. Could be marginally denser with parameter hints, but there is no wasted prose.

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?

Coverage of the async lifecycle is solid, and no output schema means return values need not be explained. However, for a six-parameter, zero-schema-coverage tool with no annotations describing parameter effects, leaving every input undocumented makes the definition only partially complete for correct invocation.

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% across six parameters (including an enum goal, a refresh flag, selectedKeywords max 10, and confirmedKeywords that requires exactly 2), and the description never mentions a single one of them. The title's "by keyword" offers only a faint hint about keyword input. A description carrying this many undocumented parameters should compensate, and it does not.

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 ("Search the web for link prospects"), which reads as a distinct action from siblings like list_prospects, add_prospect, and find_prospect_contact. It also implicitly differentiates from get_prospect_discovery by framing itself as the launcher. It does not, however, explicitly name which siblings it should be preferred over.

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 establishes the async usage pattern clearly ("Runs in the background; poll get_prospect_discovery with the returned job"), which is genuinely useful routing information. But it gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to alternatives such as add_prospect or find_prospect_contact, and no prerequisites beyond the quota note. Implied usage only.

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