Score a company's fit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the scoring runs in seconds, evaluates 5 named dimensions, and returns an A–D tier with per-dimension reasons, which tells the agent what to expect back. It stops short of explaining how the account ICP is sourced or what happens when signals are missing.

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?

Three tight sentences: trigger first, then what it evaluates and returns, then the sibling alternative. No filler and nothing buried.

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 12-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers trigger, scoring dimensions, and return shape (A–D tier plus reasons). It doesn't address how the 12 mostly optional inputs combine or what the score degrades to when context is thin, which is the main remaining gap.

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 the schema itself carries strong inference guidance for vertical, targetRole, and productDescription, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about which inputs matter most or how partial data affects the score, so baseline 3 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 and resource (scores one company's fit against the ICP) and immediately scopes it to a single company, contrasting with batch_fit_score. An agent can distinguish it from get_icp_profile or assess_company_readiness without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the person asks whether one company is a good fit, before they reach out or spend more time') and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it ('For many companies at once, use batch_fit_score'). Both the when and the when-not are present.

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