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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the auth requirement ('Cotlet API key with access to this app') and the full shape of returned data, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 return-field list is effectively duplicated — sentence one ('contacts, property, status, notes, tags, tasks and recent activity') and sentence two ('contacts, property, current status, notes, tags, open tasks, the automations it is in and recent activity') overlap heavily. The usage and auth notes are front-loaded well, but the redundancy costs a point.

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 what comes back, and it does enumerate the payload fields plus the auth requirement. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, with only the mild redundancy noted elsewhere.

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 ('Lead ID from list_leads'). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the standard 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 (get) and resource (lead) and enumerates the returned facets (contacts, property, status, notes, tags, tasks, activity). The phrase 'Returns one lead' implicitly distinguishes it from list_leads, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use it before changing a lead so your agent sees what your team already did' gives a concrete when-to-use condition tied to mutation workflows. It lacks explicit exclusions or a named alternative (e.g. list_leads vs get_lead), so it falls short of a 5.

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