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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states what is ranked and by which metrics, but does not say whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates state, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the return format is.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which makes it easy to parse. It is highly compact, though 'candidate money/leads' and 'toward a target' could have been made slightly more concrete without losing brevity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description must carry nearly all context. It omits what data source is ranked, how the target is supplied, what the output contains, and any operational constraints, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 tool has zero defined parameters, so by the scoring baseline this dimension starts at 4. The description does not add meaning for the open additionalProperties input, but with no declared parameters there is limited semantic burden to meet.

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 gives a specific verb, 'Rank,' a specific resource, 'candidate money/leads,' and the ranking criteria, 'euros-per-hour and speed-to-cash toward a target.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from related siblings such as audit_opportunity or market_brief.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage cue is implied by the ranking criteria, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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