search_leads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two most important behavioral traits: asynchronous execution (returns jobId, requires polling) and resource consumption (search credits). This is strong transparency for the critical behaviors, though it doesn't mention error paths, job failure handling, or what happens on timeout.

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, zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose, then informs about the async polling behavior, and ends with the cost implication. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

The tool has a nested object (filters), no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the async nature and cost but doesn't describe the return shape of the jobId response or any error conditions. For a moderately complex tool with a nested object, some detail about response handling would improve completeness, but the essential job-handling flow is adequately covered.

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% and every parameter has a description in the schema itself. The description adds the parameter-related context of 'Consumes search credits' but doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the structured schema handles the parameter documentation; the description adds marginal value.

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 verb ('Start'), resource ('AI-powered lead search job'), and the key behavior: it's asynchronous, returning a jobId rather than immediate results. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_leads (which lists leads) and get_search_job_status (which polls for the job outcome), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool returns a jobId immediately and directs the user to poll get_search_job_status for results, which is essential usage guidance for an async tool. It also mentions the credit cost ('Consumes search credits'). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast when to use this vs sibling discovery/enrichment tools like discover_companies or enrich_lead, nor state when NOT to use it.

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