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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description bears most of the burden, and it delivers real behavior: duplicate phone numbers are refused, the call returns the created lead's id, and no call/text side-effects fire. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core action and its distinguishing constraint front-loaded. The dashboard-form analogy and the get_settings pointer each earn their place by resolving ambiguity.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by declaring the return value (the new lead's id) and the duplicate-refusal failure mode, plus team_id defaulting. For a 9-param creation tool it is nearly complete; explicit mention that phone_number is required and any permission prerequisites would close the gap.

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 100% so the schema already defines all nine fields, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: team_id originates from get_settings called with no arguments and otherwise falls back to the primary team. That is a genuine workflow addition beyond the 'defaults to primary team' note in the schema.

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 (add a new lead to a team) and immediately scopes it against the call/SMS siblings with 'without calling or texting it.' The dashboard New Lead form analogy and the distinguishers from get_lead/update_lead/search_leads let an agent identify this tool without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly frames the context: use this to create a lead record without initiating any call or text, unlike make_ai_call/schedule_call/send_sms. It also gives workflow guidance that team_id should come from get_settings. It does not name explicit alternatives for editing or looking up leads, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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