prioritize_csc_leads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and behavior. The description adds useful context: 'paid' (cost), 'reuses map_csc_products per domain, then ranks', and 'Multi-domain', which goes beyond structured annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a differentiation line, with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool has no output schema and 4 parameters, the description is fairly complete. It explains the process, its relationship to other tools, and key constraints (paid, multi-domain). Could mention return format or pagination, but annotations cover safety, so overall adequate.

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% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds extra semantic context, e.g., for 'brand' it explains 'discovers the portfolio, derives ownership buckets, then ranks the top candidates', enhancing meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'rank', the resource 'CSC sales leads', and the criteria 'product-gap value × severity'. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools 'map_csc_products' and 'batch_scan', providing clarity on scope.

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 notes that the tool is 'Multi-domain, paid' and distinguishes from related tools, implying when to use this ranking approach versus per-domain mapping or raw scores. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide comprehensive alternatives beyond the two mentioned.

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