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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it changes exactly two behaviors (cadence and active state), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, whether existing scan history is affected, or whether changes take effect immediately.

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 tight sentence with the two configurable dimensions front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for the usage context an agent would need.

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 4-required-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: two identifiers (projectId, siteId) are never explained, and neither the effect of pausing nor the relationship to run_lead_scan is addressed.

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 0%, but the two enum parameters map onto the description's two clauses: frequency ('how often leads are scanned') and status ('whether the monitor is active'). The required projectId and siteId have no explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 (set/update) and resource (lead monitor) and names the two settings it controls: scan frequency and active state. It is distinguishable from run_lead_scan (which triggers a scan now) and create_lead_alert_rule, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 says what is configured but not when to call this versus alternatives like run_lead_scan (immediate scan) or set_lead_alert_rule_status. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing guidance beyond what the name implies.

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