fuel_b2b_leads

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose two real traits: the source is Show HN and each call costs $0.010 USDC via the x402 payment protocol, which is meaningful auth/cost context. It is silent on freshness, caching, pagination, failure behavior, and rate limits, which leaves material gaps for a paid network call.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core capability stated first and cost appended as the last fact an agent needs. Every clause (source, fields, score range, price) carries information.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials: where the data comes from, what each result contains, the score range, and the payment requirement. The remaining gap is that, absent an output schema, it does not describe the actual response shape or any pagination/ceiling behavior.

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 100%, so both `limit` and `category` are already fully documented in the input schema and the description adds nothing about them. The mention of the 30-100 Intent Score range is output context rather than parameter meaning, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb ("Fetches") and a specific resource ("live B2B buying intent signals from Show HN"), plus the payload fields returned (tech stacks, domains, Intent Scores). That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from markdown-cleaning or price-scraping siblings without opening any schema, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with an alternative.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus another, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions; it only implies a lead-research use case through the phrase "B2B buying intent signals." The $0.010 USDC note hints that calls are metered but does not translate into usage guidance.

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