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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the operation is asynchronous (returns after queuing), carries REsimpli skip-tracing pricing, triggers an external data lookup ('reaches other people'), and requires a Cotlet API key with app access. These are non-obvious behavioral traits the agent needs before invoking a non-readOnly, openWorld tool.

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 with the purpose and follow-up tool, and every sentence carries operational value. Confirmation is mentioned twice ('By default you confirm each call' and 'confirm with the user before each call'), a minor redundancy in an otherwise efficient block.

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 one-parameter async mutation with no output schema, the description covers the async contract, the read-result sibling, pricing, confirmation, external reach, and auth requirements. It is nearly complete; only per-call error/limit behavior is unaddressed, which is minor.

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 parameter (lead_id) is fully documented as 'Lead ID from list_leads.' The description only implies property-owner context and adds no syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Run a skip trace on the lead's property owner') and names the exact follow-up tool (get_skip_trace_results) for reading the outcome. An agent can distinguish this from get_skip_trace_results and other resimpli lead tools without opening schemas.

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?

Clearly explains the async flow: it returns once queued, then you read results with get_skip_trace_results. Also notes confirmation behavior and that it reaches other people. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when...' exclusion, but routing to the sibling is clear.

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