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

Annotations already declare the write/non-readonly profile, but the description adds real behavioral insight: the confirm=false preview performs no mutation and surfaces duplicate matches, and create_duplicate should only be set after human verification. This is meaningful context beyond what the annotations supply.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the critical preview workflow; little waste. The dedup guidance in the last sentence is slightly wordy but 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?

No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the important runtime behaviors (preview, dedup, when to set create_duplicate) for a mutation tool. The gap is the undescribed field set, which the schema coverage does not backfill.

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 only 29% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the email-or-phone requirement and the semantics of confirm and create_duplicate, but the other ten fields (names, address, tags, source, etc.) are undocumented in both places.

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 ('Create a new prospect (contact) in a HighLevel sub-account') and clarifies the synonym prospect=contact. It does not name the closest sibling (highlevel_find_contact) explicitly, so the sibling differentiation relies on inference.

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 an explicit call pattern: call without confirm first to preview, then act only after confirmation, and reuse an existing match unless the human says otherwise. This is clear operational context, though it does not name alternative tools (e.g. highlevel_find_contact) for lookup-first workflows.

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