Search leads by company domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context not in the annotations: no credit consumption and the workspace-only data boundary that explains why results may be empty.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The core action and search key come first, followed by the scope and cost caveats that matter for interpreting results.

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 and fully covered input params, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (e-mail, name, company, phone, stage, tags, verification status, do_not_contact). Scope, cost and safety are all accounted for, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling it.

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%, and the schema fully documents domain, role and limit with formats, ranges and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the domain input but adds no syntax or matching semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Search the leads already in your Cold Leads CRM') plus the search key ('target company domain'), and enumerates the fields returned. The sibling tools (verify_email, provisioning tools) are functionally unrelated, so there is no realistic confusion to disambiguate.

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 the tool's scope: 'Covers only contacts in your own workspace (Cold Leads has no third-party lead database)', which functions as a when-not-to-expect-results rule, and notes 'Free, uses no credits'. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for third-party lookup or email verification.

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