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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that: it describes the two-phase commit gate and the exact fields stamped (status, reviewed_at, campaign_id) and notes downstream pipeline ingestion. It omits token expiry/retry semantics and reversibility, 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?

Purpose and the two-phase contract are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the trailing sentence about downstream ingestion is genuinely informative. The middle sentences are clause-dense and could be tightened, but nothing is pure filler.

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 6 parameters, a destructive mutation, and no output schema, the description carries the burden well: it explains the phased return (token + preview), the required-parameter asymmetry, and the side effects. An agent has enough to invoke both phases correctly without guessing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning the schema does not: campaign_id is 'the campaign the leads will be associated with' and is required only for approve, and confirmation_token is the phase-2 commit switch — clarifying how parameters interact rather than just restating them.

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 pair (approve/reject) plus the resource (discovered leads), which cleanly separates it from find_leads and the campaign-management siblings. An agent knows exactly what operation this is without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the two-phase call sequence (phase 1 returns token + preview, phase 2 commits with confirmation_token) and the conditional requirement that campaign_id applies only to action='approve'. It does not explicitly say 'use this after find_leads' or name any alternative tool for reversing an approval, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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