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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation with open world hint. The description adds the behavioral detail about fixed variable names, but does not disclose side effects like duplication handling (only hinted by allow_dupplicate parameter) or required permissions.

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 two sentences: first states purpose, second delivers a critical usage note. No redundant information, front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 5 parameters with nested objects, the description only covers variable constraints. It omits return value details, prerequisite requirements (e.g., campaign existence), and full parameter semantics, making it incomplete.

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?

With 40% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining that variable names are fixed and only values can be supplied. However, other parameters like allow_dupplicate and secondary_contacts remain unexplained, leaving gaps.

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 clearly states 'Create a new lead in a campaign,' using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_campaign and update_lead.

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 includes an important note about variable names being fixed, guiding usage, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives like update_lead or delete_lead.

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