Clay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns ('numbers and percentages, never specific contacts') and what it doesn't return. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be helpful for a tool performing database aggregation operations.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: three sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides concrete examples, and the third gives explicit usage boundaries with the alternative tool. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining what the tool does and when to use it. However, it doesn't describe the output format beyond 'numbers and percentages' - no mention of specific return structure, data types, or error responses. Given the complexity of aggregation operations, more output details would be helpful.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'query' field usage indirectly through examples but doesn't provide additional context about how parameters interact or are processed.

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: 'Get numerical statistics and counts ONLY' with specific examples like 'how many work at Google?' and 'what % are engineers?'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by contrasting with 'search endpoint' for 'who' questions or contact details, making the distinction from searchContacts and getContact very clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use search endpoint instead for any "who" questions or to get actual contact details.' It gives clear examples of appropriate use cases (counting questions, percentage queries) and explicitly names the alternative tool (search endpoint/searchContacts).

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