hub_search_prospects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns enriched data, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior or mention limitations such as rate limits, cost, or error conditions. It adds some value by detailing the type of returned data, which is a positive signal.

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 exactly two sentences with no redundancy, front-loading the purpose and then listing return fields. Every clause adds value, and it is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It lacks essential context like query syntax, pagination behavior, meaning of the limit parameter, and error scenarios. The agent has only the general purpose and return field list, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% — the description never mentions the 'query' or 'limit' parameters. The agent receives no guidance on how to formulate a query (e.g., natural language vs. keywords), what format is expected, or how the limit parameter behaves. Since the schema itself offers no descriptions, the description fails to compensate for a critical gap, leaving the agent to guess.

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 action ('Search for prospects') and specifies the resource type with a distinctive enrichment method ('using Clay data enrichment'), listing concrete return fields (title, company size, tech stack, funding, social profiles). This differentiates it from sibling tools like crm_search_leads which likely operate on CRM data, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It implies its purpose (prospect searching) but doesn't mention exclusion criteria or conditions for using other search tools like crm_search_leads or collect_signals. An agent must infer context from the tool name and sibling list, which is insufficient.

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