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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further details about side effects, permissions, or limitations. It does not contradict annotations, but provides minimal additional behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

While the core purpose is clear, the description omits details about the nature of the history returned and does not explain all parameters. Given the simplicity of a GET endpoint, it may be sufficient for basic use, but lacks completeness for nuanced scenarios.

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 input schema lists parameters (id, ids, query, account) with no descriptions. The description only hints that 'ids' is for bulk use, leaving 'query' and 'account' unexplained. This provides insufficient guidance for correct usage.

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 retrieves lead history via GET, and mentions bulk support for multiple IDs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like datacrazy_leads_get or datacrazy_leads_list by focusing on history, but could be more specific about what constitutes 'history' (e.g., activities, notes, changes).

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 mentions bulk capability ('accepts ids for batched execution') but does not explicitly state when to use this over other lead-related tools. It lacks guidance on alternatives or conditions, such as when to prefer this over datacrazy_leads_get.

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