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

With annotations already covering write/non-destructive/open-world, the description adds real context: the record is created in Lead state, self-converts on booking, notifies no one, and is undoable in a single call so it skips confirmation. It also states the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). Return shape is not described.

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 lead behavior is stated three times in near-identical wording ('starts it as a lead', 'starts a new contact as a Lead until an appointment is booked'), and 'Adds a contact profile' is filler. Roughly half the text is redundant restatement, burying the genuinely useful auth and reversibility facts.

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 6-param creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle state, reversibility, notification behavior, and auth requirement — enough for an agent to call it correctly. It omits any indication of the returned identifier, which would be useful for chaining into appointment creation.

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% with 6 documented fields, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about field formats, which of the optional fields matter, or defaults — 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Add a new contact'), and the follow-ups clarify the domain concept of a contact becoming a Lead. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like zenmaid_get_contact or zenmaid_list_contacts beyond the obvious create semantics.

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 rather than stated: the agent can infer you call this to register a new customer before an appointment exists, since the contact stays a Lead 'until an appointment is booked.' There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., use this vs zenmaid_create_appointment).

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