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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety cues. The description adds key behaviors: non-persistent source, results saved to the lead pool, and suitability for text/web input. However, it omits details about return values, duplicate prevention, or execution mode (sync/async), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a use case and a parameter example. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and nested config, the description provides a clear destination (lead pool) and a reference to a sibling tool for config details. It does not specify return values or execution behavior, but for ad-hoc extraction with a known sibling, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema documents the 'type' param but not 'config'. The description adds a concrete example (type='text_paste', config={text}) and directs users to neuron_create_lead_source for the full config pattern. This partially compensates for the schema gap, but config remains under-specified for other source types.

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 the tool runs a one-off extraction without creating a persistent source and saves results to the lead pool. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like neuron_create_lead_source by explicitly mentioning the absence of persistence, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explains when to use the tool (for pasted text or a web page) and contrasts with persistent source creation by saying 'WITHOUT creating a persistent source'. This implies an alternative for persistent use, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or provide exclusion criteria.

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