prospect_finder_find_and_rank_prospects

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that the tool calls external APIs (Fiber.ai and Perplexity) and may incur costs or have rate limits. It also does not mention that the result is stored in a variable (output_variable_name) or any side effects.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. No unnecessary words or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary action (searches) and secondary action (scores/ranks).

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the output format (list of ranked prospects stored in output_variable_name), nor does it mention that the tool can exclude prospects (exclusion_slugs). The lack of behavioral context (e.g., external API calls) makes it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke without additional knowledge.

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 71%, which is moderate. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. For instance, 'seller_product' and 'seller_icp' are present in schema with descriptions, but the description does not explain their role in the scoring process. Score at baseline 3 as schema covers most but description does not enhance.

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's purpose: searching prospects via natural language (Fiber.ai) and scoring/ranking them against an ICP (Perplexity). It distinguishes from sibling prospect tools like 'prospect_research_find_prospects' by specifying the two-step process of search then scoring.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'prospect_research_find_prospects' or 'prospect_research_research_prospect'. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria. The description assumes the agent will infer usage context.

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