prioritize_csc_leads

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral traits: multi-domain, paid, reuses another tool, and ranking criteria. This adds value beyond annotations, though caching or rate limits are not mentioned.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, follows with key characteristics, and ends with sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description explains the tool ranks leads but does not describe the output format (e.g., list structure, scores). The format parameter hints at verbosity, but the return structure is unclear, leaving a gap for agents.

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%, and the input schema already contains detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, justifying the baseline score.

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 ranks brand portfolios or domain sets into prioritized CSC sales leads based on product-gap value and severity. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings map_csc_products and batch_scan, providing clear differentiation.

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 the tool is multi-domain and paid, giving context on when to use. It explicitly names alternatives (map_csc_products, batch_scan) and mentions reuse of map_csc_products, but does not elaborate on prerequisites or exclusions.

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