ICP Qualification

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the scoring model, tier classification, constraint context, and recommended engagement strategy, which enriches the agent's understanding beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet point for fit dimensions, and parameter details. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be shortened without losing clarity.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter details, return values including tier, breakdown, and constraint context. It is sufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates: it explains company_id requires HUBSPOT_API_KEY, company_data includes example keys (industry, annual_revenue, etc.), and scoring_config is optional. This is highly informative.

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 it scores a prospect against the Artefact 14.5-point ICP model, evaluating multiple fit dimensions. The title 'ICP Qualification' and sibling tools confirm it is distinct from other tools like 'analyze_engine' or 'detect_signals'.

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 on parameter usage: 'Provide EITHER company_id OR company_data'. It also explains the optional scoring_config. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives.

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