Search leads by company domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation context: the workspace-only data scope and the fact that it consumes no credits. It stops short of describing result formatting or truncation behavior when limit is hit.

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 tight sentences with the action and data scope front-loaded, followed by the cost/scope caveat. The field enumeration doubles as a return-value summary, so nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully lists the returned fields, and it covers the workspace scope and cost model. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and behavior when the limit truncates a large domain's lead set.

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 domain, role and limit are all fully documented in the schema, including domain normalization and the 1–50 limit range. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 + resource + scope: 'Search the leads already in your Cold Leads CRM for a target company domain,' and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools (verify_email, provision_account_and_get_payment_link), which are about verification and provisioning rather than retrieval.

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?

Explicitly bounds usage: 'Covers only contacts in your own workspace (Cold Leads has no third-party lead database)' and notes it is free. This tells the agent when NOT to expect results, but it never names an alternative tool or a condition under which a sibling should be used instead.

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