list_project_prospects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses sorting order (priority ascending, newest first within rank) and full status coverage, which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only or pagination details, but 'list' implies non-mutating, and adding more might bloat the description.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, differentiation, and sorting. No fluff, key information front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming key output fields (status, priority, matchReason) and conveying the filtering/sorting behavior. It lacks explicit mention of pagination default or search fields, but the schema covers those. For a list tool with moderate complexity, this is complete enough.

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 67%, and the description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions for q, status, priority, and projectId are informative; limit/offset are self-explanatory from names and bounds. The description's mention of status and priority refers to output fields, not parameter usage, so it adds limited semantic value.

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 lists a project's prospects with status, priority, and matchReason. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_outbound_targets, making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit guidance by contrasting with get_outbound_targets: use this tool for prospects in any status, while the sibling lists reachable rows only. This clarifies when to choose one over the other.

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