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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: rate limiting (3 free searches per day per IP), auth requirements (none), expected speed (under 60 seconds), and scope (24 trades, any US city). It also clarifies output content (contact info) without contradicting readOnlyHint=true.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key constraints, and it is reasonably compact. The 'When to use' line is somewhat tautological and the final exclusion is vague, so a small amount of trimming could improve clarity.

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 simple tool with two required parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers inputs, output, scope, quota, and auth. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 already provides good descriptions and examples for both trade and city. The description adds the US-city constraint and the 24-trade limit, which are not in the schema, though it does not enumerate the supported trades.

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 that the tool takes a trade type and city and returns 5 qualified leads with contact info, so the purpose is evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like leadsignal_generate or other lead-generation tools.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When not to use' guidance, covering unrelated work and missing required inputs. It does not name concrete alternative tools, and the 'safer read-only route' exclusion is vague since the tool itself is annotated as read-only.

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