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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool returns ('evidence-based comparison with the complete public example audit URL') and lists the topics covered, but it does not disclose the exact nature of the comparison (e.g., static vs. dynamic), any limitations of the evidence, or whether it requires external dependencies. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the primary use case, followed by a list of covered topics and a clear pointer to an alternative. Every sentence contributes, with no fluff.

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?

The description covers the what, when, and alternatives. It lists the topics covered (retries, idempotency, etc.), which gives a good sense of the output. However, it lacks details on the format of the output (e.g., is it a report? a URL? a list?) and does not mention any prerequisites or limitations that might affect the agent's expectations. Still, given the zero-parameter, static nature, it's reasonably 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds context about the tool's output scope, but since there are no parameters to explain, the description's job is minimal. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description provides useful context about what the tool returns, which aids the agent in understanding the tool's purpose.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing LeadProof against an in-house build for lead-delivery reliability controls. It specifies the resource and the decision context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like evaluate_leadproof_fit or get_leadproof_plan_decision, which might also involve comparison or decision-making.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: when the buyer is deciding between building internally or buying LeadProof. It also provides a clear alternative: 'For diagnosis of one live workflow, use audit_lead_workflow instead.' This is direct and helps an agent route correctly.

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