match_prospects

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the input constraints (email OR full name+company) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, authorization needs, or rate limits. It implies a read-only lookup but lacks detail on behavioral traits beyond the matching logic.

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 relatively concise, with the core purpose front-loaded. The bullet points for usage are helpful but some are too broad ('Need prospect enrichment tools'). The 'Do NOT use' section is clear. Minor redundancy can be trimmed.

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 description covers input constraints well but is incomplete on output. It states the tool returns a prospect ID but does not describe the response structure, error handling, or behavior for no matches. Without an output schema, more detail on return values is expected.

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 0% for the top-level parameter, but nested object has property descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the required combination of email or full name+company, and mentions optional fields. However, it does not fully compensate for the lack of schema description on the main parameter.

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 it gets a prospect ID from email, full name, and company. It distinguishes from sibling tools like enrich_prospects_profiles and fetch_prospects by specifying the matching purpose and when to use it. However, it could be more specific about the exact ID retrieval and how it differs from other prospect 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 provides explicit 'Use this when:' and 'Do NOT use for:' sections, with specific scenarios like prospect enrichment and contact information. It clearly excludes leadership searches and employee lookups, giving excellent guidance on when to and not to use this tool.

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