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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the most important trait: this is a non-mutating dry-run that changes nothing and only shows the target file. It does not cover permissions, failure behavior, or detailed output shape, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with 'Dry-run' and the safety guarantee. Every phrase earns its place and there is no unnecessary text.

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 two-parameter preview tool with fully documented schema, the description conveys purpose, non-mutating behavior, and the basic result ('shows which file would be deleted'). It lacks explicit routing to the real delete tool and error details, but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both required parameters (lead id and document id). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: dry-run preview of which lead document file would be deleted. It clearly distinguishes itself from the destructive sibling delete_crm_lead_document by stating 'Dry-run' and 'Changes nothing.'

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 dry-run framing gives clear context for when to use this tool rather than an actual delete operation. It does not explicitly name delete_crm_lead_document or other alternatives, but the intended pre-delete/preview usage is clear.

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