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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the creation of a lead, the requirement of at least one contact method, and explicitly limits its scope by stating it cannot confirm lessons or create schedule items. This is meaningful context that goes beyond the basic 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds a requirement and an exclusion, both earning their place without redundancy or fluff.

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 13 parameters and an output schema, the description provides essential context about the tool's purpose and constraints. It does not explain return values (covered by output schema) or every parameter, but it offers enough for an agent to understand the action and its limitations. Sibling tool differentiation could be stronger, but the description is self-sufficient for most cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the key constraint that 'requires name and at least one contact method,' which clarifies the relationship between the name and contact fields. However, it does not describe the other 12 parameters, relying on the schema's titles and defaults, so it only partially compensates.

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 the action: 'Create a request-first lead for an online vocal lesson.' It distinguishes this from siblings by explicitly noting it never confirms a lesson or creates a schedule item, which sets it apart from tools like search_lesson_availability or list_lesson_options.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to initiate a request-first lead. It also includes an explicit exclusion ('never confirms a lesson or creates a private schedule item'), which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not directly name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond this exclusion.

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