qualify_prospect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that the tool performs network fetching, follows contact/about/write-for-us subpages, checks noindex and sponsored-only policies, and produces a template recommendation. What's missing is any sense of cost, rate limits, or failure behavior on unreachable pages.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and score, then the detection list, then the parameter note. Every clause carries information, though the long semicolon-chained sentence makes it denser than it needs to be.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description has to describe returns — and it does, citing a 0-100 score, detected page types, found emails, and a template recommendation. A brief note on how the result is shaped (single object vs. nested sections) would close the remaining gap.

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 compensate and only partly does. It explains topic_keywords well with a concrete example and describes its default source, but url is never characterized (absolute URL? existing page only?) and my_domain's role is only obliquely implied through the keyword-lookup sentence rather than stated.

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+output: "Fetch a prospect page and score it 0-100," then enumerates exactly what the fetch inspects (guest-post pages, roundups, resource pages, noindex, spam links) and that it returns an outreach template. That level of detail clearly separates it from scan_site and find_opportunities.

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?

Usage is implied by the prospecting context, and the topic_keywords fallback ("if omitted, the saved project's keywords for my_domain are used") clarifies a default. But it never states when to call this instead of scan_site, find_opportunities, or seo_link_audit, nor any prerequisite such as a saved project existing for the keyword fallback to work.

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