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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing that identities are 'source-dated', that profile links and AI interpretations 'require review', and that it triggers no providers or outreach — context annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is read before the caveats and exclusions. No wasted clauses, though phrasing like 'source-dated public identities' and 'relationship observations' leans on internal jargon that could be tightened.

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 does the work of enumerating the returned data categories (identities, employment history, activity, relationships) and the review caveat. It stops short of describing pagination or field-level detail, but is adequate for a two-parameter read tool.

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 50%: workspaceId is well documented in the schema, while leadId is only a UUID pattern with no prose. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, but leadId being a self-evident UUID limits the practical gap, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and an enumerated set of resources (public identities, employment history, public activity, relationship observations) scoped to 'a lead owned by this workspace'. This is enough to distinguish it from write-style siblings like enrich_person or set_lead_input, though it doesn't name a sibling 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?

The closing sentence gives useful negative scope ('does not fetch providers, change identities, enroll or contact anyone'), which implicitly steers agents away from enrich_person and sequence tools. However, there is no explicit positive when-to-use statement or named alternative, so routing is left to inference.

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