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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns a no-purchase sequence, lists its components, and implies no workflow data or authorization is required—contrasting with the checkout tool. No hidden side effects are suggested.

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?

Three sentences: when to use, what it returns, and what to use instead for other needs. Every sentence earns its place; the primary use case is front-loaded and there is no redundant phrasing.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers usage scenario, return content, and alternatives. It also clarifies authorization requirements for the related checkout tool. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter detail. It does add context about when to invoke, which is sufficient.

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?

States a clear purpose: returns the official no-purchase evaluation sequence for buyers exploring LeadProof without workflow data. Uses specific verbs ('Returns') and names the content, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming them.

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 instructs when to use it first (buyer exploring without workflow data) and provides exclusions with alternatives: audit_lead_workflow for scored diagnosis, get_leadproof_replay_trial for replay testing, and get_leadproof_checkout only after authorization. This is exceptional routing guidance.

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