find_sub_leads

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

The description reveals the return structure ({count, leads[], sub_watch}) and notes the extra '_matched_naics' key. It also mentions the empty condition when no matches exist. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and adequately discloses behavioral traits without contradiction.

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 a single, moderately sized sentence. It front-loads the key purpose and includes return format and edge cases. While concise, it uses specialized jargon ('cold-outreach lane', 'primary NAICS') that might require domain knowledge. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (mentioned but not shown), the description covers purpose, behavior, and return format. It explains the matched_naics key and empty condition. It does not explain setting naics_sub_watch, but that is likely a separate tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 only parameter, 'limit', is not described in the description; the schema provides its default (10) and type. With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but the parameter is simple and self-explanatory. A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema covers the basics, but the description adds no additional meaning.

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 the tool's purpose: finding sub-leads based on recent awards matching the agent's naics_sub_watch list. It specifies it is the 'highest-signal cold-outreach lane' and distinguishes it from siblings like find_awards by focusing on sub-watch matches. The verb 'find' and explicit resource 'sub_leads' make the action unambiguous.

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 context on when the tool is appropriate (when naics_sub_watch is set, returns empty otherwise) and implies it is for high-signal leads. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or compare to alternatives like find_awards or find_opportunities. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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