Find leads

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains what the tool does (reads the site, searches the web), what it returns (email, name, title, company, source page, plus a short answer), the cost model (1 credit per new lead with an email, free when nobody is found), and the latency (a minute or two).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and inputs, then returns, then cost, then latency, then the workflow caveat. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the accompanying short answer. Combined with cost and latency disclosure, nothing essential for correctly invoking the tool is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates that request accepts a URL or ideal-customer description but adds no syntax, formatting, or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 (find) plus resource (people to email / leads) and the two accepted input forms (website URL or ideal-customer description). An agent can tell this is a lead-prospecting tool distinct from list_radar_leads, check_lead, or qualify_radar_leads without opening the 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?

Provides clear workflow context with 'Qualify the leads before sending' and the schema note that chatId refines an earlier search. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g., qualify_radar_leads) or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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