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

The description discloses what the tool returns (public manifest, live checks, etc.) and what it excludes (customer records). However, there are no annotations, and the description does not address authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the 'live checks' imply some side effect. It provides moderate transparency but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 long, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides a good overview of the return content and an important exclusion (no customer records). It could be improved by noting whether the tool requires authentication or if it's publicly accessible, but it is largely complete for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by detailing the content of the returned data, which helps the agent understand what to expect without needing parameter explanations.

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 returns the public LeadProof evidence manifest and lists specific components (live checks, contracts, protections, limitations). It is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes from siblings like audit_lead_workflow or get_leadproof_trial.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions that it contains no customer records, which is a helpful exclusion, but no comparison with sibling tools or context about when to choose this over others.

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