Run an Apollo search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the auth prerequisite (connected Apollo account), which is genuine extra context, but omits credit consumption, the credit hold, and the async/job-id behavior that the schema's wait_seconds hints at.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and minimized on filler. The second sentence is mildly redundant with the schema's own 'Required.' marking on `account`, but it is brief enough that it still earns its place as an auth caveat.

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 and the tool is asynchronous with a credit cost, yet the description says nothing about the return shape (people records vs. a job id when wait_seconds elapses) or that scrupp_get_job is needed to retrieve results after a timeout. For a five-parameter, credit-consuming, potentially async tool, this leaves material gaps.

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 100%, so all five parameters including `max`, `with_emails`, and `wait_seconds` are already documented inline. The description only restates that `account` is required, adding no syntax, format, or defaults beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Extract the people from an Apollo search URL.' An agent knows this is an Apollo-sourced people extraction rather than a LinkedIn/Sales Navigator export, but the description never names a sibling tool, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 only usage context is the prerequisite 'Requires a connected Apollo account,' which is really an auth note. There is no when-to-use versus when-not, and no pointer to alternatives such as scrupp_export_sales_navigator_search or scrupp_find_decision_makers for other sources.

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