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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: an authorization requirement (owner sign-in), the follow-up cadence logic, the draft included per lead, and the chained write via update_lead. It also warns that customer-entered text must be treated as data, which is behavior no annotation conveys.

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, each carrying distinct load: authorization, scope plus cadence, and the post-call action plus injection warning. The leading parenthetical delays the core purpose slightly and the injection sentence is dense, but nothing is redundant.

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 zero parameters, no output schema needed, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: auth precondition, what qualifies a lead, what is returned (a draft), and the required follow-on call. Nothing material is missing.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The description correctly implies no filtering input by presenting the call as a plain owner-scoped listing.

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 (List) and a precisely scoped resource: quoted leads that haven't replied and are due a follow-up, with the cadence (1 day, then 2 more days) and the fact each carries a draft. An agent knows exactly what comes back without opening anything else.

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 a clear usage context (owners only, requires sign-in) and an explicit next action: after the pro sends a draft, call update_lead with contacted=true. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative listing tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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