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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuine behavioral value by saying 'Replace', signaling full-overwrite rather than merge/patch semantics, and 'Send every field' reinforces that all five required fields must be supplied. It omits what happens to omitted fields, permission needs, and whether an active discovery run is affected.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the replacement semantic leads. It is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity, but nothing in the text is wasted.

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 five-required-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It never explains what the settings control, the rating bounds, or the page-type options an agent must choose from.

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 five parameters, so the description is the only place meaning could be added, and it adds none beyond 'Send every field'. Terms like minDomainRating, maxDomainRating, and pageTypes (whose enum values drive prospect selection) are left entirely undefined.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('settings used to find prospects'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling getter get_prospect_discovery_settings. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, but the replace/read contrast is evident from the name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as start_prospect_discovery or get_prospect_discovery_settings. 'Send every field' is an invocation constraint rather than usage context.

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