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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool captures a lead and enforces a contact method requirement, plus an availability constraint. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether a record is created, CRM updates, notifications) or error behavior. It's not misleading but lacks depth for a mutation 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a list of use cases and constraints. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition of the tool name or schema.

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 lead-capture tool with a nested customer object and vehicle_of_interest, the description covers the intended scenarios and validation rule. There's no output schema, so return behavior isn't expected, but the description could mention what happens after capture (e.g., confirmation or success/failure feedback). Given the tool's simplicity and high schema coverage, it's nearly 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?

Derived from the description, the contact method requirement ('Requires at least one contact method (email or phone)') is an additional constraint not fully enforced by the schema, which only requires first/last name. The description also maps use cases to the 'intent' enum values, adding context to the parameter's meaning. Schema coverage is high (83%), but the description supplements it meaningfully.

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 verb and resource: 'Captures a sales lead for an automotive dealership.' It lists specific use cases (test drive, financing, etc.) and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all read-only getters/search tools. The purpose 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?

The description provides a comprehensive list of when to use the tool ('test drive requests, vehicle inquiries, financing questions, lease questions, trade-in conversations, or general interest') and a key prerequisite ('Requires at least one contact method'). It also notes availability ('Only available for automotive clients'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but siblings are all clearly read-only, so it's implicit that this is the write tool.

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