list_tenant_prospects

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it excludes do-not-contact prospects and warns that results are truncated beyond the limit (no pagination). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it covers the most important behaviors. It does not mention potential errors or response format, but these are not critical for a list operation.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the main purpose and immediately follows with key behavior notes. It contains no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the core aspects: purpose, tenant-wide scope, exclusion of do-not-contact, and truncation behavior. It does not explicitly mention the filter parameters, but those are fully defined in the schema, which the description complements. For a list function, this is sufficiently complete.

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?

All four parameters (q, limit, industry, excludeProjectId) have descriptions in the input schema, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline of 3 as per the rubric for high schema coverage.

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 function: 'List existing prospects across the entire tenant, excluding do-not-contact prospects.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (prospects), scope (entire tenant), and exclusion criteria, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's primary purpose.

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 implies usage by stating the scope and exclusions, and it provides a practical note about truncation ('No pagination — results beyond limit are truncated'), which guides users on setting limits. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, though no direct alternatives for listing prospects exist among the siblings.

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