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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds important behavioral scope: it operates on one company 'in today's daily leads' and returns a rich set of fields, which is valuable context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss rate limits, errors, or response format.

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 sentences and front-loads the main action. The first sentence is a long but purposeful enumeration of return contents; the second sentence gives usage context. Every clause earns its place, though the list is dense enough to be slightly heavy.

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 no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns, and it thoroughly enumerates the scoring breakdown fields. Annotations cover the safety profile, the schema covers the single input, and usage is stated. An agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool 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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already explains 'Company name or organization id from today's daily leads.' The description repeats 'one company in today's daily leads' without adding format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the FULL scoring breakdown for one company in today's daily leads.' It enumerates the contents (match score, confidence, buying stage, forecasts, ML predictions, insights, play, contacts), which distinguishes it from the broader sibling get_daily_leads and from profile-oriented tools like get_company_profile.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: 'Use this whenever asked why a lead scored what it did, or for the same depth the Fundz lead inbox shows.' That tells the agent when to choose this tool for explanatory depth, but it does not name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it.

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