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

The description goes far beyond the annotations. It discloses that the tool creates a real CRM lead (consistent with openWorldHint), mandates client-reported marking, specifies idempotency mechanics (UUID reuse), and prohibits secrets or file bytes. These are concrete behavioral details that annotations alone do not convey, with no contradictions.

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 a tight, front-loaded paragraph with zero fluff. It states the primary action first, then prerequisites, scope constraints, idempotency, parameter alternatives, and safety rules in logical order. Every sentence carries essential information.

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 tool with 8 required fields and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational knowledge: what it does, approval requirement, idempotency key handling, source selection, and forbidden inputs. An agent can safely invoke it without additional lookup.

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?

With schema coverage at 75% (moderate), the description adds meaning by clarifying the mutually exclusive source groups (repository_url+commit_hash vs snapshot_id+upload_token) and the private nature of review_key. This helps an agent understand parameter relationships beyond the individual field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Creates one real CRM lead and review,' a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling upload and status tools by explicitly framing this as the final submission step that creates a CRM record and review, not just an upload.

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 preconditions ('Show the exact brief... and obtain approval first') and parameter selection guidance ('Use either repository_url + full commit_hash or snapshot_id + upload_token'). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, the context with sibling tools like prepare_review_upload and finalize_review_upload implies the workflow, and the preconditions effectively gate usage.

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