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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false) signal a non-idempotent write, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it is an async job, polling is free, and results are capped at 25 leads per call. It does not state auth requirements or job-expiry behavior, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and result shape, followed by the async flow and the lead cap. The trailing 'Try GET /company-leads/sample' is a slightly extraneous non-sequitur but still useful and brief.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, yet it summarizes them helpfully and explains the async create/poll/retrieve pattern. Enough for an agent to invoke correctly, with only auth and job-lifetime details 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents sector, country, city and max_results, including the 1-25 range. The description's mention of 'city optional' and the 25-lead cap largely restates the schema rather than adding new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('B2B lead search') and spells out both inputs (sector, country, optional city) and the returned fields (name, title, work email, company name/domain/employee count). An agent can distinguish this from unrelated siblings like search or research without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly frames the input contract ('give a sector and a country, city optional') and describes the async workflow (POST creates, then poll for status and retrieve results). It points to a sample endpoint for exploration but does not name or exclude any alternative tool, so usage context is clear but not fully routed.

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