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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the lead is routed to the sales inbox and explicitly states a non-destructive boundary: it does NOT write to any customer CRM. It does not cover success responses or idempotency, but the core mutation behavior and safety constraint are transparent.

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, no filler; the core action, destination, and boundary are front-loaded, and the usage cue is at the end. Every clause 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?

The tool is a simple lead creation with all parameters documented and clear routing. The only missing piece is what the agent should expect in response (no output schema), but for this low-complexity handoff that is a minor gap. Overall sufficient.

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 the schema already explains all six parameters. The description adds only the general context that this is on behalf of an interested prospect; it does not add detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific action (submit), target (Lead Friendly sales inbox), and subject (prospect). The 'Does NOT write into any customer's CRM' also separates it from potential CRM-writing tools; siblings like book_demo/get_pricing are clearly unrelated, so an agent can recognize when create_lead is the intended tool.

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?

'Use to hand off an interested prospect' explicitly states the triggering condition, and 'Does NOT write into any customer's CRM' gives a when-not/boundary signal. It stops short of naming alternatives like book_demo for the demo-ready scenario, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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