Refine a lead search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds that the original job remains unchanged, but it does not disclose persistence behavior, asynchronous job polling, rate limits, or other side effects beyond creating a new job.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and key constraint, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The schema and annotations cover the parameter and safety landscape, and the description gives the essential purpose. However, it omits lifecycle context such as how to retrieve the resulting job or whether it is asynchronous, which would be useful given the job-based nature of the 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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear one-line description. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline score applies.

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 ('Create'), a distinct resource ('new private search job'), and a unique action ('by changing the brief or criteria of a completed job'). The explicit non-destructive outcome ('The original job stays unchanged') further disambiguates it from similar lead-search tools.

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 use when refining a completed lead search and clearly frames the action, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as start_lead_search or retry_lead_search, nor does it provide direct 'when not to use' guidance. Context is present but not fully explicit.

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