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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the read-only nature and enumerates the returned fields, which is genuinely useful given the absent output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or permission requirements on the lead.

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?

One sentence for content plus a two-word behavioral flag, both front-loaded with zero filler. Every element 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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the return fields and states the operation is read-only. Only minor gaps (ordering, pagination, permissions) remain, which are low-stakes for this 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Lead id (UUID)'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 the resource ('Files attached to a lead card') and pre-empts the return shape by listing fields (id, name, type, size, uploader, date). The list action is only implied by the tool name rather than the description, and it doesn't explicitly name the singular sibling crm_get_lead_document, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative crm_get_lead_document for fetching a single file, and no prerequisites such as required lead access. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the phrase 'attached to a lead card'.

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