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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: nothing is sent to the lead, and the optional reason feeds back into targeting. With destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true already declared, the description's "remove from the queue" framing is consistent (the lead record is not deleted), though it never states whether a skipped lead can be restored to the queue.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its key guarantee (nothing is sent), then the gating conditions, then the side effect. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter queue mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what happens, when to use it, and the effect of the reason field. The only meaningful omission is reversibility — whether a skipped lead can be re-queued or re-engaged later.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by explaining what the optional reason actually does — it is recorded to improve targeting — which the schema's "Why, in a few words" does not convey. The leadId source (get_queue) is only in the schema, not repeated here, which is fine.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove one lead from the queue") plus the crucial scope qualifier "without contacting them. Nothing is sent." That contrast with approve_lead makes the sibling distinction obvious without naming it.

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?

Gives three concrete when-to-use conditions (person does not fit, note quotes something wrong, customer would not want to be written to), which is unusually actionable. It stops short of explicitly naming approve_lead as the alternative path or stating when not to skip, so not a full 5.

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