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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a detailed account of what the diagnostic report covers: lead existence, ICP score, threshold checks, dedup status, exclusions, per-provider filters, and a verdict. This goes well beyond the annotation hints and makes side-effect expectations explicit.

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 description is lengthy but every clause adds information: purpose, accepted inputs, report contents, and lookup helpers. It is front-loaded and avoids filler, though the list of report categories makes it denser than necessary.

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 complex diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, the full scope of the report, and how to obtain valid identifiers. The main gap is the mismatch between the described parameters and the empty input schema, which leaves the actual call contract ambiguous.

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?

The input schema has zero properties, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It clearly names workflowId and the leadId-or-profileUrl choice and notes that profileUrl is a LinkedIn URL. It loses a point because it omits types for workflowId and leadId and because the described parameters are absent from the structured schema, which could confuse invocation.

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 description opens with a specific verb and object: 'Diagnose why a specific lead was or wasn't sourced into a workflow.' It then enumerates the report contents, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from lookups like search_leads or get_lead_history.

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?

It names the two lookup tools to call for valid workflowId and leadId values and states the accepted identifier combination. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative diagnostic tools, but the context of sourcing diagnosis is clear.

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