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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the duplicate email/phone rejection rule and the allow_duplicate escape hatch. It also clarifies workspace scoping. It does not mention success responses or side effects, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action is stated first, then the critical duplicate-handling behavior is front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

For a create operation with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is not complete. It does not explain what the tool returns on success, how conflicts beyond duplicates are handled, or how required fields like full_name factor into creation. An agent would still need to infer or discover the response shape.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 36% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning and relationships. It only clarifies the duplicate behavior tied to email, phone, and allow_duplicate. Many parameters such as value, source, company, and description receive no semantic guidance beyond their names.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('CRM lead') and scopes it to the caller's workspace, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like crm_create_contact or crm_create_deal. The title and description align on the operation.

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 implies usage for creating a new CRM lead, which is reasonably clear from the resource name, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions beyond the duplicate-refusal behavior.

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