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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: "SPENDS CREDITS unless a report from the last 30 days already covers this company," the cached-result behavior, and the asynchronous execution model with immediate id/status return. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs to know.

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?

Three tightly scoped sentences: what the tool does, the credit/caching caveat, and the expected async follow-up. There is no filler or repetition; each sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter asynchronous initiation tool, the description is complete: it states the input, the outputs, the cost behavior, and the required polling step. The output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required here.

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 100%, so the schema already fully explains companyUrl. The description reinforces that the URL is a LinkedIn company URL, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Start an Account Intelligence report for a company LinkedIn URL" and enumerates the outputs (firmographics, ICP verdict, buying committee). It also distinguishes itself from the polling sibling get_account_intelligence by stating that this call returns immediately and the other must be polled.

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 gives clear context: this is the initiating call, and it explicitly directs the agent to "poll get_account_intelligence until status is ready." It also explains the caching/credit condition that affects when the call is worthwhile, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as run_person_intelligence or get_icp.

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