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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), the description adds real value: it states that contact details are withheld until contact_lead, that no credits are spent, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. These are behavioral facts annotations alone don't convey. It does not describe pagination or error behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 list of returned fields (customer answers, location, credit cost, responses, signals) is stated twice in near-identical wording, once in the opening sentence and again after 'Returns the full request'. That duplication wastes space that could carry new information, so the definition is padded rather than tight.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, plus covers the read-only safety profile and the API-key prerequisite. The lead_id source is inherited from the schema. It is largely complete, missing only notes on result size or failure modes.

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% and the single lead_id parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from list_leads or list_responses. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail about lead_id, so the baseline 3 for schema-heavy definitions applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (get the full lead request) and enumerates exactly what it returns: customer answers, location, credit cost, response count and signals. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling contact_lead by noting contact details stay hidden until that tool is called.

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?

It establishes clear context for use ('the full request before you buy it') and names the follow-up tool (contact_lead) with the condition that selects it. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with list_leads or list_responses as the entry point, so alternatives are only partially covered.

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