score_leads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses the two-phase scoring (lexical pre-score then Claude semantic), the ANTHROPIC_API_KEY requirement, the fallback behavior without the key, and the final sort order. This is rich behavioral context beyond basic safety.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then details the process and key constraints. Every clause adds value—no filler. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 description covers the main flow, the API dependency, fallback, and sort order. However, with no output schema, it does not specify the exact format of the final score (e.g., field name, range), leaving a small gap. For a tool of this complexity, this is a minor omission.

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. The description adds context about the escalation threshold and two-phase process, but all parameter meanings are already well documented in the schema (e.g., 'Pre-score needed before a post is sent to Claude'). The description does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool's specific function: 'Score Reddit posts as sales leads for a product' with a detailed two-phase process and return behavior. This verb+resource combination clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_reddit and fetch_thread.

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 implies when to use by stating it scores posts 'as sales leads' and the schema's posts parameter notes they come 'as returned by search_reddit', giving clear context. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or direct alternatives, so it doesn't fully meet the 5-level bar.

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