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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns only public evidence, explicitly excluding customer records, and implies a read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, or any potential limitations beyond the exclusion of customer records. This is a minor gap given the parameterless nature of the tool.

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: the first front-loads purpose and return contents, the second provides exclusions and alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, what it returns, what it excludes, and when not to use it, including specific alternatives. There is nothing an agent needs to know to call it correctly that 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none. The description effectively covers the tool's behavior without referencing parameters, which is acceptable for this parameterless 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 clearly states the tool is for due diligence and verifying LeadProof claims with public evidence, and lists specific outputs (live checks, contracts, buyer protections, limitations). It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming what it does NOT do and pointing to alternatives. The verb-resource pair is precise and unambiguous.

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 states when to use ('Use for due diligence or to verify a LeadProof claim with public evidence') and when not to ('Do not use to select a plan or start a trial'), naming the exact alternatives (get_leadproof_plan_decision, get_leadproof_trial). This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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