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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for a 'public client directory' (implying non-destructive, likely no auth) and describes the return payload. However, it does not mention pagination, result limits, ordering, or error behavior, which are common gaps for search tools. The provided context is basic but not comprehensive.

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 is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then providing return details and filter options. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 straightforward search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facets: what is searched, what is returned, and what filters are available. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing pagination or result limits, but given the simplicity, it is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by clarifying that 'query' is free-text across name, description, and industry, and explicitly enumerates the available filters. This goes beyond the schema's terse parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool 'Search Lead Stampede's public client directory' with a specific verb and resource, and further specifies return content (contact info, services, ratings) and filtering capabilities. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_client (specific retrieval) and list_business_types/list_cities (enumeration helpers), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by listing filters (city, business type, free-text query) and the output structure, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_client for fetching a single known client. There is no mention of when not to use it, though the context is clear enough for basic usage.

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