verify_lead

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the $0.27 cost, that it hits external registers, and the composite 0-100 output. It stops short of disclosing latency or what a partial/failed match returns.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the scope and enumerates the checks without waste. No filler, nothing repeated from annotations or schema.

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 an 11-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description names the output (0-100 lead score) and the verification domains, which is what an agent needs at selection time. Missing only edge-case/failure behavior, which is minor given the rich schema.

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 (IBAN partial return, email domain-only, phone rejection, VAT/VIES) is already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format guidance beyond what is structured, so the 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 precise verb (Verify) and resource (NL/BE sales lead) and enumerates the five checks performed plus the 0-100 lead score output. It differentiates by region and 'sales lead' framing, though it never names which sibling (check_entity, sanctions_screen) it supersedes despite overlapping on sanctions.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies this consolidates multiple checks and is preferable to calling several sibling tools separately, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or prerequisite statement, so an agent must infer the routing.

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