Buscar leads por nicho

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

Discloses three things annotations cannot convey: it consumes credits, it is asynchronous and returns only a task_id, and it should not be called without user confirmation. Annotations already mark it non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description's cost + async + confirmation notes complement rather than repeat them.

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?

One-sentence purpose line followed by a scannable bullet per parameter, then two workflow sentences. No filler, and the cost warning plus confirmation request are placed where they will be read before invocation.

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 6-parameter, non-idempotent, credit-consuming search it covers the cost, the parameter space, the async return contract and the confirmation requirement. An output schema exists, so it correctly does not restate the return shape beyond naming task_id and the retrieval tool.

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%, so the description must carry the whole burden and it does: every one of the six parameters is explained with the constraint that matters (lead_count range 1..500 with default 25, country as 2-letter ISO only for linkedin+phones, niche and location with concrete examples). It adds meaning well beyond the bare enum and type declarations.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Busca leads nuevos de un nicho en una zona', which tells an agent exactly what the tool produces. There is no sibling that competes for the same job (the other tools are enrichment, lookup and task-retrieval operations), so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, which is why this sits at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance for the two decision-heavy parameters: channel 'linkedin' for B2B roles/companies vs 'instagram'/'tiktok' for creators and local businesses, and country only when 'linkedin'+'phones'. It also states a workflow prerequisite ('Pide confirmación al usuario antes de llamarla') and routes the follow-up to get_task_result, so both when-to-use and what-to-do-next are covered.

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