lookup_lead

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the $0.10 USDC per-lookup cost and explains that the call returns x402 payment requirements which the agent's wallet must satisfy. That payment-gating behavior is essential and non-obvious. It omits error/rate-limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then cost/payment mechanics, then examples. Every sentence adds information, though the two example forms slightly overlap with the preceding sentence's description of accepted input.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. Combined with the stated cost and payment flow, the definition gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly; only edge-case behavior (no match found, payment failure) is unaddressed.

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 0% and the single 'query' parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It explicitly states the accepted values (company name or domain) and gives two worked examples ('Acme Corp', 'acme.com'), which is enough to construct a valid call.

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 and resource ('Look up one verified B2B contact') plus the accepted key types ('by company name or domain'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It doesn't explicitly position itself against its siblings (list_packs, buy_pack), but their pack-oriented framing makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

Two concrete example invocations show expected input shape, which implies intended usage, and the pricing line signals this is a paid, single-record lookup rather than a bulk operation. However, it never states when to use this versus the sibling pack tools or any preconditions/exclusions.

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