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

Annotations provide no useful hints—all flags are false, so the description must disclose behavior. While it mentions 'consented' (a requirement), it does not explain whether the operation is a write, what happens on success or failure, if it is idempotent, or any authentication requirements. The agent is left with minimal understanding of side effects, making this insufficient for a mutative action.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately compact for a short tool, but the brevity means it omits key details. For the conciseness dimension itself, it scores well, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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, sparse annotations, and an input schema lacking descriptions, the description is the only resource for an agent. It only states the high-level action and leaves critical details—such as lead structure, listing requirements, error handling, and return value—completely unexplained. This is inadequate for a tool with complex input.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It never references the parameters 'listing_id' or 'lead', nor does it explain their structure or meaning. The 'lead' object is an arbitrary object with additionalProperties, yet the description offers no guidance on required fields or format. This is a severe gap given the flexible input.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('a consented consumer lead') targeted at 'a supported published listing'. It distinguishes the action from siblings by focusing on lead submission, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives. The phrase 'supported published listing' is somewhat vague, so it does not fully differentiate from related tools.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'procure' or other siblings. There are no scenarios, exclusions, or conditions that help an agent decide between this and similar tools. Usage context is implicitly the action of submitting a lead, but no explicit direction is given.

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