intelligence-api

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'Lead Quality Score' filtering but fails to explain what this score represents (scale, calculation method), pagination behavior, rate limits, or side effects. Does not disclose that this is a read-only operation or potential costs associated with the Google Places API.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes core functionality and unique filtering mechanism; second sentence specifies optimal use case. Information is front-loaded and appropriately scoped.

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?

Adequate for a 4-parameter search tool but gaps remain. No output schema exists, yet description does not hint at return format (list of businesses with scores?). Fails to mention API key prerequisites or error handling for invalid keys, which are critical for a third-party API integration tool.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds value by contextualizing 'min_score' as 'Lead Quality Score' in the main text, but does not elaborate on parameter interactions, syntax nuances, or the significance of the required 'google_key' parameter beyond schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('qualified sales leads'), specifies the platform ('Google Maps'), and distinguishes from sibling tool 'maps_search' by emphasizing sales-specific functionality ('Lead Quality Score', 'outreach lists').

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 positive usage context ('Best for building targeted outreach lists') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like 'maps_search' for general business lookups. No mention of the Google Places API key requirement outside the schema.

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