Resultado de una búsqueda

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds real behavioral value: it reveals long-polling semantics (wait_seconds waits up to 50s), the complete status state machine (PENDING | PROCESSING | COMPLETED | FAILED | CANCELLED), and that the leads list is paginated. The only nuance left untouched is what happens on FAILED/CANCELLED, whether the result expires, and the tension between the schema default of 30 and the stated 50s cap.

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 core capabilities are front-loaded in the opening line, with the parameter notes following as tight bullets — no wasted prose. The status-enum line is oddly appended after bullets that reference parameters, so the ordering is slightly jumbled, but the whole thing stays short.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained, and the description covers the non-obvious pieces: polling behavior, state machine and pagination. It leaves one practical gap: it never states that task_id comes from the response of the producing tools, which is the key link in the workflow.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: wait_seconds is defined as a poll-until-done delay with a 50s ceiling, and offset/limit are explained as pagination of the leads list. Only task_id is left undefined, and its meaning is self-evident from the tool's framing.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource pair (estado y resultado) and enumerates the exact producer tools it applies to: search_leads, lookup_linkedin_profile and analyze_website. That scope makes it distinguishable from the other siblings at a glance. What it doesn't do is explicitly contrast itself with the bulk/list status tool family (get_bulk_status, get_list_enrichment).

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 list of producer tools tells the agent which tasks this tool follows up, which implies a polling workflow after an async call. However, it never says when to prefer it over the sibling polling tools (get_bulk_status, get_bulk_results, get_list_enrichment), which are the closest alternatives in the same toolbox. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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