Detect buying signals

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: credit consumption (~1/query, budgeted), the required EXA_API_KEY/TAVILY_API_KEY, the shape of each returned signal, and a prompt-injection warning about untrusted `excerpt` text. This is exactly the kind of operational and safety disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns and closes with the credit/auth constraints; dense but no filler. The integrity warning is long but justified for a tool ingesting third-party text.

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 compensates by naming the return fields (URL, published date, confidence, matched rule), and it covers auth, cost, and security posture for a 6-parameter networked tool.

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 67%; the description adds meaning for max_credits (consumes credits, budgeted) and signal_types (enumerates the categories), while remaining parameters (lookback_days, max_results_per_company, attach_to_prospects) are already documented in 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?

Specific verb + resource ('Find ... buying signals for companies') with the enumerated signal types spelled out, so an agent can distinguish it from sdr_research_account or sdr_enrich_company without opening the schema.

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 (recent, sourced signals, budgeted, key required) but never states when to prefer this over sibling tools like sdr_research_account or sdr_enrich_company, nor any when-not condition.

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