find_prospect_gaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: filtering for missing emails and sorting by Domain Authority descending. It does not mention side effects or permission requirements, but for a read-only query tool this is adequately transparent.

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 two sentences: the first states the function, the second provides a use case. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

This is a simple query tool with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the what, the sorting, and the intended use case. It lacks explicit mention of the limit behavior but that is in the schema, so overall it is reasonably complete.

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%. The description implies campaign_id via 'in a campaign' but never names the parameter or explains the limit parameter. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, and the limit functionality is completely undocumented in the description.

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 returns prospects in a campaign missing a contact email, sorted by Domain Authority descending. This is a specific verb (return), resource (prospects in a campaign), and filter/sort, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like find_email.

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 explicitly says to use it to answer 'which prospects should I run find_email on next?', providing clear context and suggesting the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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