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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and 'Hide' is consistent with a non-destructive mutation, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the hide is reversible, whether the lead can be restored, or what happens to the underlying mention.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the specification gaps rather than being a virtue in itself.

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 state-changing tool with three fully undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent gets no information about reversibility (despite a restore_lead sibling existing) and cannot map any argument to its meaning, so it is not complete enough to call reliably without reading the schema.

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?

All three required parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. Notably it does not explain why a lead is targeted via mentionId (with projectId and siteId) rather than a lead identifier, which is exactly the kind of ambiguity the description should resolve.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Hide') and resource ('a lead') plus the qualifying condition ('not relevant'), so the agent knows the operation. It does not, however, distinguish this from adjacent actions in the sibling list such as restore_lead, reject_prospect, or set_lead_feedback, leaving boundary cases to inference.

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 phrase 'a lead that is not relevant' hints at a trigger condition but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative. There is no mention of restore_lead for undoing the action or of any other lead-disposition tool, so the agent must guess at routing.

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