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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description goes further by disclosing the required leads:read scope, that no credits are reserved, that the quote is re-validated at submission, and that already-owned contacts cost zero. That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations. It omits what the quote response contains, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

The description opens with the core action and then layers the preconditions and cost semantics in short, information-dense sentences. No sentence is filler. Minor cost is the verb 'Get' doing light work where 'Quote' would be sharper.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should ideally say what the quote returns (a total charge, per-lead pricing, or a rejection) and what 'ids' refers to. The behavioral and auth details are strong, but these two gaps leave an agent guessing about the input and the return.

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%, so the schema documents only the type and constraints of 'ids' (1-50 strings) with no semantic explanation. The description never mentions the parameter, so it does not clarify whether ids are lead IDs, contact IDs, or something else, nor what happens when some ids are invalid or already owned. With a single required identifier this is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 states a specific action and resource: getting the maximum charge for a set of selected people before the user unlocks them. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling unlock_leads by framing itself as the pre-unlock step. The only weakness is that it says 'people' rather than 'leads', leaving a small gap between the title's 'FairMatch leads' and the body text.

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 phrase 'before asking the user to unlock them' clearly signals when to call this tool and what sibling step follows. 'A quote reserves no credits and is checked again at submission' reinforces that this is a safe pre-check rather than a commitment. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly or stating when not to use it.

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