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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with those. It adds value beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool returns team-specific configuration and that the returned values are required for successful write operations. It doesn't contradict annotations and gives useful context about the tool's role in the workflow, though the output structure is left to the output schema.

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 redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose and enumerates the returned items; the second sentence gives critical usage guidance and rationale. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses every word effectively, exceeding the minimum necessary information.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, has an output schema (as indicated in context signals), and annotations cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool returns, why it should be called before specific write tools, and the team-specific nature of the data. An agent can call this tool correctly without any additional information beyond what the schema and annotations already provide.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't mention parameters at all, which is appropriate. It focuses entirely on the return value and usage context, not requiring any parameter documentation.

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 states it reads the team's lead configuration, enumerating the specific elements (status codes with label/colour, colour tag library, assignable members). It uses an explicit verb ('Read') and resource ('lead settings'), and differentiates itself from sibling write tools by framing itself as the prerequisite read for update_lead, set_lead_tags, and assign_leads. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call this before update_lead / set_lead_tags / assign_leads' and explains why: status codes, tag codes, and member ids are team-specific, and write tools reject unknown values. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly states when not to use it (no need to call for other purposes). It also points to alternative write tools that require this information.

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