Qualify Radar leads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses mutation ('store each verdict on the lead') and credit costs including the free-unknown case, which is genuinely useful. It omits auth/permission needs, rate limits, whether the operation is reversible, and what a 'verdict' or 'unknown' result actually contains.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then cost, then the downstream usage rule. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded or repeated.

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 2-parameter batch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, and the post-condition adequately. It leaves gaps on what gets stored per lead, how 'unknown' results are surfaced, and any auth or concurrency constraints an agent might need.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the 'tier' enum by pricing it (fast = 1 credit, deep = 5), letting the agent reason about which value to pass. It adds little for 'ids' beyond the schema's own note.

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 (check/qualify), resource (Radar leads), mechanism (Barometer), scope (up to 100), and effect (store each verdict on the lead). This clearly separates it from single-lead siblings like check_lead. It stops short of explicitly naming check_batch/check_lead as alternatives, so an agent must infer the batch boundary itself.

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?

Implies context through the cost tradeoff (fast vs deep) and the downstream instruction 'send only to leads that come back deliverable', which ties it to send_email. However, it never states when to prefer this over check_lead/check_batch or when to choose deep over fast beyond the credit price. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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