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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool creates a handoff, returns a plan, requires consent, and does not authorize payment. However, it does not clarify whether the act of calling the tool immediately triggers external contact, whether calls are idempotent, or what persistent side effects exist beyond creating the handoff.

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, front-loaded with the most important condition, then the action, then the exclusion. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 core call path is clear: when to use, what it does, what it returns, and what it does not do. However, with 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description does not explain how optional inputs shape the recommended plan or whether any immediate external follow-up is triggered. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to populate the optional fields.

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 description coverage is only 38%, so the description needed to compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It adds some context by tying email to 'authorized business email' and consent_to_contact to the consent gate, but these largely restate the schema descriptions. The optional parameters (plan, stack, company, monthly_leads, average_customer_value) receive no explanation of how they influence the recommended plan.

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 immediately states the exact trigger condition ('represented buyer explicitly asks for human follow-up and authorizes LeadProof to contact their business email'), the action ('creates a consent-based sales handoff'), and the return behavior ('returns the recommended plan'). It also explicitly contrasts itself with get_leadproof_* tools, making it easy to distinguish from siblings.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition, an explicit when-not-to-use list ('self-serve evaluation, trial access, or checkout'), and names the alternative tool family ('corresponding get_leadproof_* tool'). This is model usage guidance.

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