leads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does it reasonably well: it explicitly excludes enrichment, protected-trait scoring, automatic rejection, and 'Jev' usage in demo mode. These are meaningful behavioral constraints for an agent deciding whether this tool is safe and appropriate. It does not cover side effects or auth, but the stated negatives are valuable.

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?

The description is three short sentences with no filler, and the most important constraints are front-loaded. The unexplained term 'Jev' slightly hurts self-containedness, but overall the text is appropriately sized.

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 tool with a nested required input object, two enums, a confidence threshold, and no output schema, the description omits too much: expected input structure, return format, live-mode behavior, and provider implications. The behavioral exclusions are useful, but an agent still needs examples or additional documentation to invoke this correctly.

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?

The description adds useful context for the mode parameter by saying demo mode uses 'synthetic heuristic decisions, never Jev,' and it ties the input to a 'supplied ICP.' It does not elaborate on provider or confidence_threshold, though those are partially self-explanatory from their names, enums, and defaults. With schema description coverage at only 25%, this is partial but real compensation.

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 phrase 'Business facts versus the supplied ICP only' suggests comparison or scoring against an ideal customer profile, and the negative constraints clarify scope. However, there is no explicit verb like 'score' or 'match,' and what the tool actually returns or decides is only implied by 'synthetic heuristic decisions.' It is more than a tautology but remains vague.

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?

No guidance is given for when to prefer this tool over siblings such as ad_tags, survival, briefs, or search_terms. The description mentions demo mode by default but does not explain when live mode or alternative providers should be used. It is not misleading, but it provides no routing help.

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