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

The latency disclosure ('Takes about 30 seconds') is genuinely useful and not derivable from the annotations, which only mark openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. However, since readOnlyHint is false, the tool evidently produces or persists artifacts (an ICP, an email, scored companies), and the description never says whether results are stored, whether re-scanning the same domain duplicates work, or whether a credit cost applies. Those are material behaviors for an agent deciding how freely to call it.

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 sentences, zero filler. The output payload is front-loaded and the runtime expectation, the one thing an agent needs to plan around, is isolated in its own short sentence.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by naming all three artifacts and their shape (companies scored 1-10). A single fully-documented parameter keeps the surface small. The remaining gap is failure behavior — what happens with an unreachable or non-product domain — which matters for an open-world tool.

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 `domain` parameter is documented with an example in the schema itself. The description adds only a light framing — that the domain is used to read the product's site — which does not extend the schema's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a fully documented single-parameter tool.

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 names a concrete verb+resource ('Read a product's website') and enumerates the three concrete outputs: ideal customer profile, a first cold email, and best-fit companies scored 1-10. That is far more specific than the title alone. It stops short of 5 because it does not distinguish itself from the sibling that also produces cold emails (draft_outreach_emails), leaving a small ambiguity about which tool generates outreach copy.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the entry-point tool that turns a domain into an ICP and prospect list. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no mention of where scan_domain sits relative to import_leads or draft_outreach_emails in a workflow.

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