apollo_search_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The description is minimal and does not add behavioral context beyond the basic search functionality.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key parameters without wasted words. It is concise and efficiently conveys the tool's function.

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 5 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It fails to explain search behavior (e.g., partial matching), constraints, or how to use parameters effectively, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 20%, with only the 'extra' parameter described. The description mentions q_organization_name and account_stage_ids, adding some meaning, but also references 'sort fields' which have no corresponding parameter, potentially misleading. It partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 searches the user's own Apollo CRM accounts, distinguishing it from searching the prospect database. It lists specific parameters, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating from siblings like apollo_search_companies.

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 for internal CRM accounts vs. the prospect database, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of 'vs the prospect database' gives context but lacks exclusions.

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