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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the returned Markdown contains, but says nothing about behavior when no teardown has been generated yet, access requirements, or whether results are cached.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the contents. The trailing enumeration is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the artifact covers.

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, the description need not detail return structure, and it supplies enough content-level context for an agent to know what it is fetching. The only gap is the absence of guidance on the precondition that research_lead must have run first.

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% and both parameters (leadId, projectId) are documented in the schema with provenance hints (list_leads, list_projects). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

Specific verb (Returns) plus the exact resource (the Markdown teardown research_lead generated for a lead), and it enumerates the sections the artifact contains. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like research_lead (which generates it) and list_leads.

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 phrase 'research_lead generated for a lead' implies this is the retrieval counterpart to research_lead, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite that the teardown must already exist, and no mention of alternatives.

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