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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=true) by disclosing the irreversible consequence (lead permanently marked converted, cannot convert again or change stage), the idempotent return of the first result on retry, the existing-deal return for already-converted leads, V2 pricing defaults, and the untrusted-content warning about CRM field values.

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?

Front-loads the core action and keeps every sentence load-bearing, but the commercialPricing sentence is dense and slightly run-on, and the untrusted-content note adds length that could be tightened.

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 destructive, multi-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers requirements, side effects, pricing behavior and idempotency well. It does not describe the shape of the returned deal, though it does indicate an existing deal is returned when already converted.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates substantially: it explains what data holds, how commercialPricing maps to save_deal_commercials fields (minus four named ones), where expectedUpdatedAt/expectedLifecycleRevision come from, and which fields carry over. workspaceId and leadId are left to the schema, so it stops just short of full coverage.

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 and resource with scope: 'Converts one lead into a new deal in a single step.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_record, update_record and transition_record_stage, which an agent might otherwise consider for deal creation.

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?

Names concrete conditions and alternatives: set pointOfContactId/productIds only when the user asks for different ones, use save_deal_commercials fields for pricing, and fetch expectedUpdatedAt/expectedLifecycleRevision from get_record_action_context. It also addresses the retry path via idempotencyKey and the already-converted case.

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