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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the exact HTTP method (GET) and the batch execution behavior via multiple IDs. This is appropriate transparency for a simple read-only tool.

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 highly concise: two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and endpoint. The bulk-support line is informative and adds no redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple and annotations cover safety and idempotency, but the description still leaves `query` and `account` undefined, and with no output schema it does not hint at return structure. It is adequate for basic ID-based retrieval but not fully complete for all parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `id` (lead ID) and `ids` (batch support), but `query` and `account` remain undocumented. This leaves meaningful gaps for optional parameters, though the core required parameter is clearly explained.

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's function: 'Buscar lead por ID' (search lead by ID) with the explicit GET endpoint. It distinguishes itself from list-type siblings by specifying ID-based retrieval, and the bulk support note adds a clear second capability.

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 provides clear usage context: use it to fetch a lead by ID, with bulk support via the `ids` parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives like datacrazy_leads_list or state when not to use it, but the by-ID focus is sufficient for basic selection.

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