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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the admin-role prerequisite and the warning that existing speed-to-lead configuration may contact new leads during ingestion, which is a side effect an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Each clause carries either a prerequisite, a caution, or a scope statement, though the sentences are somewhat compressed into one block.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotation set covers the mutation/risk profile. Combined with the authorization prerequisite and lead-contact warning, an agent has enough to decide and execute, with only the two UUID parameters' exact meaning left thin.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the semantics. 'An explicitly selected connected LSA advertiser' loosely maps to connection_id, but business_id is never addressed and the phrase 'explicitly selected' adds no actionable format or constraint detail.

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 ('sync') and a specific resource ('an explicitly selected connected LSA advertiser'), which is enough to distinguish it from read-only LSA siblings like get_lsa_report or list_lsa_leads. It stops short of a 5 because it never clarifies what sync actually ingests or produces, leaving the effect implied rather than stated.

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 real when-to-use guidance: requires a current business admin role, and 'use only when authorized to run ingestion' frames it as a guarded operation. It names no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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