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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the content: current position, next-fire timing, and orphan status after a sequence edit — behavior an agent cannot get from annotations. It stops short of noting what happens for an unknown or deleted lead, which would be the remaining gap.

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 scope constraint and alternatives up front, no filler. One small blemish: 'in its campaign sequence' could be misread as campaign-level, and the alternatives clause is dense, but no sentence is wasted.

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 effectively sketches the return payload (position, next action time, orphan flag), which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Missing only error/not-found behavior for a leadId that is not in any flow.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already says leadId comes from lead_list. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 verb-less but precise query: where a lead sits in its campaign sequence now, when the next action fires, and whether it was orphaned by a sequence edit. That is a distinct resource (single lead's flow position) that is clearly separable from flow_get, flow_audit, and sequence_leads_at_step.

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?

Explicitly scopes to 'one lead, current position only' and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: sequence_leads_at_step for all leads on a step, flow_audit for campaign-wide rewrite effects. No inference required.

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