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

Even though annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the leadSource field disambiguates shared vs private leads, platform presence lives under the profiles key with legacy aliases at top level, and the watch key conditionally appears. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, then adds response-shape guidance and a fallback instruction. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure flows from core meaning to important nuances.

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 adequately covers what the agent will receive: company info, ICP scores, profiles structure, legacy aliases, watch information, and leadSource. It also covers the not-found case with a clear alternative. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 only defines leadId as a required string with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the semantic burden. It helps by explaining that the ID can be a shared or private workspace-scoped CSV-imported ID, and that leadSource indicates which was found. It doesn't provide exact ID formats, but it gives enough context for correct 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 resource: 'Get a lead by ID with full details including company information and ICP scores.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from search-based and list-based siblings by emphasizing ID-based lookup.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool and when not to: if the lead is not found, it directs the agent to campaignstack_search_leads. It also clarifies that both shared and private lead IDs are accepted, removing ambiguity about which ID types can be passed.

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