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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by disclosing that the score is frozen at submission time rather than recomputed. That is a non-obvious semantic an agent could otherwise get wrong when comparing against current quiz state. It stops short of noting not-found behavior or per-project scoping effects.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads the return shape, the second qualifies the score semantics. No preamble, no restating of the tool name.

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 must sketch the return value, and it does (answers, score, tier). For a two-parameter read-only lookup that is close to sufficient; the remaining gaps are error cases for an invalid or cross-project leadId.

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 50%: 'project' is documented in the schema as a project id from list_projects for per-call scoping, while 'leadId' is bare. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so it neither compensates for the undocumented leadId nor improves on the documented project param. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precisely what comes back: a single lead, its answers, and quiz score/tier when applicable. That distinguishes it in practice from list_leads (one record vs. many), but it never names the sibling, so the separation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. An agent must infer from the phrase 'One lead' that this is the single-record counterpart to list_leads, and nothing addresses what to do if the id is unknown or which project context to pick.

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