lead_discover

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It highlights 'no browser required' and 'scored URLs', but lacks details on ranking methodology, side effects, or authentication needs. Transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise (two sentences) but omits important parameter information. While succinct, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 complexity of 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify how ICP fit ranking works, how options like country/profile affect results, or what the response format is. The tool's behavior is under-specified.

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 low (20% — only vertical has a description). The description does not explain parameters like query, country, profile, or maxResults. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Search for company candidates matching a query and rank them by ICP fit.' It specifies the action (search), resource (company candidates), and key differentiators (ranking, scored URLs, no browser required). This distinguishes it from siblings like lead_extract and lead_generate.

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 implies use for discovering leads before extraction ('Returns scored URLs ready for extraction') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The 'no browser required' hint is useful but insufficient for clear guidance.

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