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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description rightly spends its words elsewhere: auth requirement, site-claim prerequisite, what messages are collected, where they go (owner mailbox + dashboard), and the no-charge fact. It adds real behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though re-enabling behavior and rate limits are unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the auth requirement and the core action, then layered prerequisite and cost notes. Sentence fragments are slightly choppy but every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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 two-param toggle with a full schema, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies prerequisites, effects, and cost. An agent has enough to invoke correctly; only post-condition details (what the response confirms, effect on existing submissions) are omitted.

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 100% and both parameters are self-explanatory in the schema ('site' with an example host, 'enabled' with true/false semantics), so the description need not re-explain them. It adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 — 'Turns lead collection on or off for a claimed site' — and immediately clarifies what the feature does (visitors send name/email/message, messages emailed and stored). An agent can distinguish this toggle from read-oriented siblings like list_form_submissions and list_site_leads without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('claim the site first') and an auth precondition ('needs account token'), which is more than most toggles offer. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it (e.g. disabling an already-disabled form), so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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