List prospects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing cost characteristics ("Free, local") and pagination mechanics ("opaque cursor"), which an agent needs to iterate results correctly.

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: the first front-loads the filterable dimensions, the second handles usage, cost, and pagination. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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 read-only, paginated query tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, cost, and pagination adequately. It could note the default page size or the shape of the per-list summary, but no critical gap blocks correct 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?

Schema description coverage is only 11% across 9 parameters, so the description carries much of the burden. It conceptually covers list, status, email status, company domain, search, and include_lists_summary, but omits limit, cursor semantics, and has_email, and gives no enum-value meaning for status. Partial compensation warrants a mid score.

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 (query) plus resource (saved prospects) and enumerates the filter dimensions it supports (list, status, email status, company domain, free-text search). It also names the sibling tools it precedes, so an agent can distinguish it from sdr_export_csv and sdr_push_to_campaign without inspecting schemas.

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?

"Use it to review a list before sdr_export_csv or sdr_push_to_campaign" gives explicit usage context and names the downstream alternatives. It doesn't address when to prefer sdr_search_people over this tool (saved vs. net-new prospects), so it stops short of a full when/when-not map.

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