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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the asynchronous nature of the underlying workflow, expected completion timing ('usually completes within minutes and never later than about an hour'), the credit semantics (reserved vs charged), and the side effect that found data is written to the lead rather than returned. This is far beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 dense but efficiently structured: it leads with the operation, enumerates return fields in a logical order, then gives usage context, timing, and a critical caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema present, the description fully compensates by listing the statuses, wanted fields, credit fields, result fields, and errorCode. It also provides the trigger condition, expected duration, and the all-important clarification that the tool does not return the actual contact data. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both requestId and workspaceId already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond restating the requestId origin indirectly, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one built-in Contact Finder request by id.' It clearly distinguishes this single-request getter from the sibling list tool by deliberately saying 'one' and 'by id', and enumerates the exact fields returned, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Poll it after campaignstack_enrich_lead_contact_info returned status pending with provider bettercontact.' It also tells the agent what not to expect ('never returns the email or phone itself') and points to campaignstack_get_lead for the actual data, effectively routing to the correct sibling tools.

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