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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, implying mutation, but the description adds significant detail: idempotency on (company, email), auto-triaging behavior, and write-tier approval requirements. This goes beyond what annotations provide, clarifying the operational impact and approval flow.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by key constraints. It front-loads the primary action and then provides routing and approval context. It is a bit dense but every sentence earns its place, except perhaps the approval paragraph could be more streamlined.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, key behavioral traits (idempotency, auto-triage), and approval requirements. With no output schema, it doesn't explain return values, but for a simple creation tool this is fine. It could mention typical success/failure responses, but it's not critical.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds value by emphasizing that email or name is required (though not structural), and notes that source defaults to 'manual' which is already in the schema. No additional parameter semantics are needed beyond 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?

The description clearly states it adds a new lead to the Leads CRM, specifying the table (crm_leads) and its integration with the Leads tab, triage, and outreach. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_lead by focusing on creation, and from list_leads by being a write operation.

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 'Routing: CRM/sales → add a lead or prospect → use this' line explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool. It also provides guidance on idempotency and required fields (email or name), which helps the agent know when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the routing context is strong.

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