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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds real value beyond them: the return shape ('its ID and the status it starts in'), the fact that no one is notified, that it executes without confirmation, the undo path (delete in REsimpli), and the Cotlet API key/access requirement. It stops short of describing rate limits or duplicate handling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the middle sentences are choppy and grammatically loose ('It reaches no one. It runs without asking by default, and delete the lead in REsimpli to undo it.'). Information density is reasonable but the phrasing could be tightened.

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 no annotations on auth or side effects, the description supplies the key missing pieces: return value, notification behavior, confirmation behavior, undo path, and credential requirement. It is close to complete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six fields including required first_name and phone. The description only says 'contact details and property address' and adds no per-parameter syntax or format meaning beyond that, so baseline 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 ('Creates a lead') scoped to seller leads with contact details and property address, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like resimpli_add_lead_note or resimpli_assign_lead. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other CRM create-lead tools or from resimpli_get_lead, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the create action, and 'It reaches no one' plus 'delete the lead to undo it' gives useful side-effect context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative from the large sibling set, so routing is left to inference.

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