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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose important behavior — the $0.001 USDC x402 payment requirement, and the semantic meaning of each status value (quoted = agent proposed listings/terms, booked = contract or lease signed) — but it never states read-only nature, error behavior for unknown request_ids, or what happens if the lead doesn't exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the cost prefix bracketed out; every clause adds information (states, status definitions, partner acceptance). The parenthetical status glossary is long but earns its place by disambiguating ambiguous terms like 'quoted' and 'booked'.

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 only two required params and no output schema, the description does the important work of describing what the response conveys — the lead status and whether a partner accepted it. What remains thin is the read-only/payment-consumption contract and failure modes, but the core is covered.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters including the origin of request_id. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format, matching rules (e.g., must customer_email match the lead's email?), or validation behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Check the status of a real-estate lead') and enumerates the possible states, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly name the sibling realestate_lead as the creator counterpart, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: it references 'the request_id returned by /api/realestate/lead', which signals this is a follow-up call after creating a lead. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, so the agent must infer the workflow position.

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