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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing that the result is an aggregated account view (notes, web research, people) rather than a minimal row lookup, which shapes agent expectations for a read call. No contradiction with annotations.

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 purposeful sentences: the first front-loads scope and contents, the second gives usage context. No filler or repetition of the schema's parameter description.

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 one-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description provides the key return contents and typical use cases. Combined with the parameter's schema description and the annotations, an agent has enough to select and call this tool correctly.

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 single parameter crm_company_id is 100% documented in the schema, including where the UUID comes from (list_crm_companies, search_crm_leads, get_lead_context). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond indicating 'one' company, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description leads with 'Account view of one CRM company' and enumerates the payload: details, account notes, web research, and every person with crm_lead_id, contact_id, role, pipeline stage, and campaign. This makes it clearly a singular read tool and distinguishes it from siblings like list_crm_companies and update_crm_company.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before account-level decisions (who else to contact, who already replied) and before merging duplicates,' giving concrete when-to-use conditions. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of the highest bar.

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