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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns structured data intended for downstream synthesis/drafting tools, which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It doesn't detail pagination or exact response shape, but with no output schema and a read-only, idempotent operation, the description carries enough context.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the output nature is stated, and the usage guidance is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent query tool with 2 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns, who consumes it, and when to use it. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the structure or format of the returned data, but since the description explicitly says it returns structured data for downstream tools, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters (lead_id and companyId) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. It does reinforce that companyId is required for company-scoped tools, but that is already 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Reconstruct'), a clear resource ('the full journey of a lead'), and enumerates the content dimensions (site actions, signals, prior communications). It also distinguishes itself from downstream synthesis/drafting tools by naming what consumes its output, which helps an agent separate it from siblings like synthesize_lead_hypothesis or draft_outreach.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'as the first step before synthesizing a hypothesis about why a lead behaved a certain way or drafting outreach to them.' This gives a clear when-to-use directive and implicitly excludes it from being used for other purposes, which is strong guidance for an agent deciding among many lead-related siblings.

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