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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what configuration is returned and why it matters for later writes, including the rejection of unknown values. It does not go into authentication or rate limits, but they are not needed here.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical 'call before writes' warning is placed prominently in the second sentence. Every phrase 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?

With zero input parameters, an output schema present, and readOnly/not destructive annotations, this description fully covers what an agent needs: what is read, why it is read, and how it affects planned write calls. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and the description correctly does not attempt to invent parameter semantics. The description focuses on what is returned rather than inputs, which is appropriate for a no-parameter read tool.

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 clearly identifies the operation as reading the current team's lead configuration and enumerates exactly what is included: follow-up status codes with label/colour/display order, the colour tag library, and assignable members. Its scope is distinct from sibling list tools because it focuses on configuration, not records.

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 description gives explicit guidance: call this tool before update_lead / set_lead_tags / assign_leads, with the reason that status codes, tag codes, and member ids are team-specific and the write tools reject unknown values. This clearly routes the agent to use this tool as a prerequisite for those write operations.

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