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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the useful semantic that requested_contact_count means different things depending on the request type (new_company vs additional_contacts), but says nothing about error behavior for a missing/invalid id.

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?

Two short sentences, return contents front-loaded, with the count-semantics caveat after. The second sentence reads slightly garbled ('the whole request's on additional_contacts') and costs some clarity for its brevity.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the main fields (status, targeting, delivered counts, progress) plus where finished results surface. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; only failure behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the only parameter, a nested 'id' uuid, is never explained in the description. The agent can infer from 'one lead request' that id identifies a request, but the description adds no explicit statement about which entity the id refers to or its format beyond the schema's uuid format.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Returns one lead request') and enumerates the returned facets: status, targeting, delivered counts, progress. The singular 'one lead request' implicitly separates it from listRequests/getContactRequest, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no direct when-to-use statement or exclusion, but 'Finished results are in Pipeline' functions as a real routing hint: once a request completes, look at Pipeline instead. The agent must still infer that this tool is the single-request counterpart to listRequests or getContactRequest.

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