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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds cost information ('Costs 1 unit') and mentions ranking/evidence, which are behavioral details. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. Well-structured and directly addresses the tool's purpose and key usage.

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?

Provides enough context to understand the tool's function and expected output (ranked evidence). No output schema is required. Minor gap on parameter details, but overall complete.

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?

Only `min_signals` is explained in the description, and `limit` and `states` have schema descriptions. The remaining parameters (cursor, industries, lookback_days, min/max_employees) are unexplained, resulting in low coverage. The description does not compensate for these gaps.

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?

Clearly states the tool finds companies matching an ICP with recent funding or SEC 8-K events, ranked with evidence. The phrase 'build a list from scratch' differentiates it from sibling tools like watchlist_diff.

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?

Provides a direct use case: 'Use this to build a list from scratch.' While it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, the phrase implies initial list creation, offering sufficient guidance.

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