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

The description adds real behavior beyond annotations: the operation is atomic, retries reuse existing conversions, and the domain service auto-populates contact, referrer, and products. It also warns that CRM values are untrusted content. None of this contradicts the annotations; it meaningfully extends them.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by essential data, idempotency, and security guidance. Every sentence adds information relevant to correct invocation, with 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?

The core conversion behavior, data shape, and retry semantics are covered well, which is important for this complex mutation tool. However, the required concurrency/expected fields are not explained and there is no output schema, leaving return-value expectations unclear. This is an adequate but not fully complete description for an agent invoking it 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 only 17%, and the description only compensates for the data parameter: it must follow describe_object(deal) and identify an open pipeline/stage. The required leadId, expectedUpdatedAt, expectedLifecycleRevision, and idempotencyKey semantics are largely left unexplained, with only the retry note hinting at idempotencyKey's purpose.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Convert a lead into a deal atomically.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic create_record/update_record tools and makes the domain transition explicit. The reference to describe_object(deal)'s create fields further anchors what the operation targets.

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?

It gives clear invocation context: conversion requires an open pipeline and stage, and explicit overrides should only be supplied when the user requests them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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