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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a new list is built every day including weekends, and each day's list is non-overlapping with prior days. It does not state result count per day or how many leads a caller should expect, which is the remaining transparency gap.

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?

Purpose and the key standalone-list behavior are front-loaded, and each sentence is on-topic. The closing paragraph mixes invocation guidance with response-formatting instructions, which makes the tail dense, but nothing is redundant enough to cut cleanly.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: AI-scored companies matching the ICP, at daily granularity. It stops short of describing the fields on each lead or typical list size, which would matter for a tool whose output is not schema-documented.

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 coverage is 100% and the single days parameter is already documented with min/max and the Monday-weekend example. The description's explanation of days largely restates the schema rather than adding new syntax or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: returns a personalized, AI-scored daily list of companies matching the user's targeting preferences. It clearly separates itself from siblings like get_lead_detail (single lead drill-down) and the search_* family (arbitrary event queries) by emphasizing the curated, date-anchored nature of the results.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use days for back-filling missed days, and gives a concrete workflow for the 'who should I reach out to' case that routes to get_lead_detail, who_do_i_know, and get_company_contacts in order. It even includes a quality directive (flag weak fits rather than padding), which is real guidance, not filler.

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