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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses the return shape ({summary, text}), since no output schema exists, and notes the result is 'scoped to the caller's merchant,' which is an important multi-tenant data-scope guarantee.

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?

One compact sentence with the read marker and return shape front-loaded before the identifier options. The bracketed '[read]' duplicates readOnlyHint and is the only wasted token.

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?

With no output schema, the return-shape note and merchant scoping make it callable, but it leaves open the key operational question of what happens when both identifiers are omitted (0 required params) and whether results are paginated or ordered. Adequate, not complete.

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 coverage is 0% and both parameters are nullable, so the description must carry the load. It names `lead_id` and `lead_uuid` and implies they are alternative identifiers, but does not state whether one is required, what happens if neither or both are supplied, or the expected format of the UUID.

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 and resource (get the FAQ list of a lead) and even names the returned fields ({summary, text}), which lets an agent distinguish it from the other FAQ getters such as get_page_faqs or get_website_faqs. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with nearby lead tools like get_lead_variables or get_lead_language.

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 which identifiers can be supplied but never says when to call this tool rather than a sibling, nor any preconditions or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the read-only framing.

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