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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description's only added behavioral value is the shape of what comes back ('full detail'), which is largely superseded by the existing output schema.

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 no filler; every clause earns its place by naming the resource and the payload contents.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essentials, but it omits the only thing an agent must reason about: how to obtain a valid prospect_id, which the sibling list_prospects would provide.

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 0% and the lone parameter prospect_id carries only a title with no type guidance or source. The description never mentions the identifier at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap on the one input that must be supplied correctly.

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 ('Full detail for one prospect') and enumerates the returned fields (contact info, lead source, status, dates), which distinguishes it from list_prospects and the analyze_* siblings that aggregate rather than retrieve. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, but the singular-record scope is unambiguous.

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?

'one prospect' implies the single-record lookup case, which is a weak usage cue at best. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_prospects or analyze_prospect_pipeline, and no prerequisite (e.g. where the prospect_id comes from) is mentioned.

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