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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the risk profile is largely covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it gates the call on an account capability and warns against emulating bulk import via save_lead loops. It does not describe partial-failure behavior across a 500-lead batch, which would be the remaining useful addition.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by the precondition and the anti-pattern warning. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus the capability gate cover the safety and eligibility picture. The only gap is what happens to a partially valid batch, which is a minor omission for an otherwise complete definition.

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 100% across both parameters, including the meaning of skip_existing, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., behavior when skip_existing is false or how duplicates are matched), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 explicit scope ('multiple leads'), which separates it from the single-lead save_lead sibling. An agent can tell what operation is being performed without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit, checkable precondition (get_account_context.capabilities.bulk_lead_import must be true) and an explicit prohibition against the wrong workaround (repeatedly calling save_lead). This is textbook when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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