prioritize_portfolio_leads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context beyond annotations: it is paid, multi-domain, reuses another tool, computes value × severity, and ranks. It also implies caching behavior via force_refresh parameter, which is useful. It could mention output shape or failure modes, but with annotation coverage this is strong.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the key differentiators are explicit, and the sibling references are compact. Every clause 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?

For a read-only ranking tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and parameter semantics sufficiently. The main gap is not describing the output shape or the 'prioritized leads' format, but given the complexity and existing structured fields, the definition is largely complete. It could also clarify what 'value × severity' means in output terms.

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 thoroughly documents all four parameters. The description adds light context: 'Multi-domain' aligns with domains array, and 'brand ... discovers the portfolio, derives ownership buckets, then ranks' adds meaning to the brand parameter. But it doesn't add much beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Rank'), a resource ('a brand's portfolio or an explicit domain set'), and the output ('prioritized registrar-partner sales leads by product-gap value × severity'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from map_registrar_products and batch_scan, making it easy for an agent to select among siblings.

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 openly states its context: multi-domain, paid, reuses map_registrar_products per domain, then ranks. It names two distinct alternatives and the differentiator ('Distinct from map_registrar_products... and batch_scan'). This gives an agent clear guidance on when to pick this tool over neighbors.

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