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 genuinely new context — the auth requirement ("Cotlet API key with access to this app") and the shape of the returned record — which annotations do not convey.

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 "Full lead" and a useful pre-reply instruction, but the phrase "the customer's answers to the job questions" is stated twice in adjacent sentences, making the second sentence largely redundant with the first.

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-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description supplies the return contents, the pre-reply usage cue, and the auth requirement. Nothing critical is missing, though return/pagination detail is absent.

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 sole parameter (lead_id) is already documented as "Lead ID from list_leads." The description adds no additional 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 (get) and resource (lead) and describes exactly what the single record contains: the customer's job-question answers, location, and timing. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling thumbtack_list_leads.

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?

"Read it before replying so the message refers to the actual job" gives a concrete when-to-use workflow cue. It does not explicitly name list_leads as the upstream alternative, but the retrieval-before-reply context is clear enough to guide invocation.

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