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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'Full detail needs Pro' (a plan gating constraint) and 'Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app' (an auth prerequisite). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the return semantics before the Pro/auth caveats. The redundant 'Crexi:' prefix is the only wasted token.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the description does explain the return shape (actions with time and type) and the two prerequisites (Pro plan, API key access). Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents lead_id as coming from list_leads. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource and clarifies what 'get' actually returns: one lead with its full activity history (actions, times, types). This meaningfully distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like crexi_list_leads, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus crexi_list_leads or other lead tools. The description implies a single-lead lookup but never states the condition (e.g., 'when you have a lead_id from list_leads') or any exclusions.

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