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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: notes are ordered newest-first in pages of 20, and notes_next_cursor fed back via notes_cursor continues the listing. It does not state what happens for an unknown lead_id, but the pagination contract is a real addition.

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 screen-rendering purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the field inventory and then pagination. It is dense but every clause carries information; the pagination sentence runs slightly long and the all-caps emphasis ('EN ENTIER') is stylistically noisy but not wasteful.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the returned fields and the notes pagination model. Combined with the read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call and interpret it; only error/empty-lead behavior is unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining the cross-call cursor loop (notes_next_cursor from the previous call goes into notes_cursor) and that notes_total reports total volume, which the schema alone does not convey. It adds little on notes_limit beyond the schema's own default/max.

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 and resource — it displays the full record (fiche) of a contact — and enumerates what the record contains (identity, channels with read state, stage, tags, notes, message counters, last contact). An agent knows it retrieves one lead's complete profile. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar siblings ficiel_fiche_prospect, ficiel_get_lead_context and ficiel_get_lead_by_handle, which all sound like the same retrieval.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named, despite three near-identical lead-lookup tools in the list. Usage is only implied by the enumerated content (use it when you need the whole picture of one lead), which leaves the agent to guess between it and ficiel_get_lead_context.

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