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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only, not destructive, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the default per-call confirmation (switchable off for this tool), the 'reaches other people' warning to confirm before each call, and the required Cotlet API key scope. It stops short of describing return values or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded and readable, but the first sentence largely restates the title, and the following sentence repeats 'creates a lead with an inquiry' that the first already conveyed. Several sentences are load-bearing, but there is noticeable redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and fully covered parameters, the description covers required fields, side effects (appointment booking), prerequisite data (source/product lists), confirmation policy, and auth needs. Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning above the schema by stating the cross-field requirement (first name, last name, and an email OR a phone), that appointment_at triggers a calendar side effect, and that source/product must pre-exist in the user's lists.

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 (creates) plus resource (lead with an inquiry, optionally a sales appointment) and scopes it to the MarketSharp account. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like marketsharp_add_note or marketsharp_schedule_appointment by naming exactly what it creates.

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?

Gives clear context: appointment_at adds an appointment to the Sales Calendar, source/product values must already exist in lists, and lead requires first+last name plus email or phone. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative (e.g., schedule_appointment) for a case where the lead already exists.

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