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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it inserts into the CRM pipeline, performs validation/enrichment/deduplication, and notes cost, latency, and sync_fast execution with get_outcome. No contradiction with annotations. It doesn't spell out every side effect, but the schema covers consent/idempotency details.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose statement, an illustrative example, clear usage guidance, and compact operational metadata. Every section adds decision-relevant information, and the example makes the calling convention concrete without excessive verbosity.

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 tool with a nested object, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use it, when not to, gives a full example call, states cost/latency, and indicates that results are retrieved via get_outcome. Remaining details like consent_record_id requirements live in the richer input schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 only 50%, and the description partially compensates with a concrete example mapping smb_id, prospect, and source. However, it doesn't explain the origin or format of smb_id, and the prospect object's fields are only illustrated by example rather than semantically defined. The description adds value but doesn't fully cover the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Structured intake of a prospect into an SMB's funnel' and 'Inserts into the SMB's CRM or direct-booking pipeline'. It clearly differentiates itself from schedule_appointment by stating what it is not for, and the lead-capture purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections, stating to use it when a prospect expresses interest and to avoid it for confirmed bookings (use schedule_appointment) or bulk list imports. This gives an agent clear selection criteria and alternatives.

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