ICP Qualification

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) indicate safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds context about scoring without side effects and mentions the API key requirement for company_id, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions noted.

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 well-structured: opening statement, scoring model breakdown, parameter guidance, and return description. Every sentence is informative and necessary, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately lists return fields (total score, tier, breakdown, exclusion check, recommended action). The tool has 3 optional parameters and no nested objects, so the description fully covers the expected behavior without gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter: company_id requires a HubSpot API key, company_data includes a JSON string with example keys and values, and scoring_config is optional with example customization keys. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool scores a prospect against the Artefact 14.5-point ICP model, details the scoring categories (Firmographic, Behavioral, Strategic), and specifies return values (tier, breakdown, strategy). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_rfm and score_pipeline_health.

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 clear guidance on using either company_id or company_data, and explains the prerequisite for company_id (requires HUBSPOT_API_KEY). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings, the purpose is distinct enough to infer usage context.

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