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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the return values (lead_id, lead_uuid) and the shape of lead_faqs, but says nothing about defaults (lead_type defaults to DRAFT), whether the lead is published or draft on creation, or permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the scoping field, with no filler. Slightly terse given the parameter surface, but well-structured.

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 12-parameter create tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers only the FAQ payload and website selectors. It omits the draft-vs-published semantics implied by lead_type's DRAFT default and the meaning of the JSON/content/slug fields, leaving the agent without enough to populate the call confidently.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains only lead_faqs ({"summary", "text"} entries) and the two website selector params; nine parameters including lead_type, lead_json, lead_slug, lead_poster, lead_content, and lead_keywords are left entirely 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+resource ("Create a new lead (deal form)") and clarifies the website scope via seliee_website_id/seliee_website_uuid. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from near-neighbors like create_lead_submit_event or publish_lead, but the object created is 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only contextual cue is that the lead belongs to a website identified by id or uuid, which does not tell the agent when to pick this over edit_lead, publish_lead, or create_lead_submit_event.

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