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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a meaningful side effect via the outreach modes (none|immediate|bulk_followup), warning the agent that import can trigger outreach. However it says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, or reversibility of the CRM write.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the optional mode values parenthetically scoped. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be self-sufficient.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, this one-liner is insufficient. It should at least clarify what lead_ids/scan_id refer to and what happens to the CRM record after import.

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% across 5 parameters. The description only documents the outreach field and its allowed values (which the schema lacks), leaving agent_id, scan_id, lead_ids, and label entirely unexplained in both places.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Import discovered leads into the agent CRM', which reads clearly as a CRM write operation rather than a scan operation. It does not name any sibling tool or explicitly distinguish itself from list_scan_results or suggest_targets, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The agent must infer that this follows a scan and consumes lead_ids from discovery results; nothing in the text routes it against the many scan/discovery siblings.

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