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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds substantive behavior beyond them: a billing/cost model ('plan's included people first, then credits per person') and an explicit two-phase gate ('nothing is unlocked until confirm_action'). It notably does not restate idempotency, which the annotation already flags.

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 that are front-loaded with the core action and use the rest for cost model and the confirm gate. Each sentence carries information and none is filler, though the phrasing 'Prepare unlocking locked Intent people' is slightly clunky.

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 and a single-param mutation surface, the description conveys the essential operating model: it is a staging step, it costs credits, and it requires chat-side user agreement plus confirm_action. The remaining gap is that it does not tell the agent where to obtain lead_ids.

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?

There is a single required parameter (lead_ids) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it. It says nothing about the format, source, or constraints of the IDs (array of strings, max length, etc.), leaving the only input undocumented.

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+resource: prepare the unlocking of locked Intent people. It also distinguishes itself from the actual commit step by naming confirm_action, so an agent can tell it apart from the unlock-enacting call. The only weakness is that 'Prepare unlocking' is slightly indirect about what it returns.

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?

It gives a clear routing condition to confirm_action ('after the user agrees in chat'), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says where lead_ids come from (e.g., list_intent_leads / get_intent_lead) or when to prefer this over sibling tools like save_intent_leads_to_list, leaving prerequisites implied.

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