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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return scope: it returns personal data but deliberately omits the conversation transcript, which is not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covers purpose, id source, and returned fields, with the transcript exclusion as a compact addendum. Dense and efficient, though the parenthetical naming two id sources slightly front-loads detail ahead of the return contract.

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 description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the collected contact fields, qualification stage, conversation status, and timestamps. Combined with the annotations it is nearly self-sufficient for calling correctly; only the unexplained brand_id/query parameters leave a small gap.

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 50%; the description compensates for the undescribed 'id' by explaining it is a lead id sourced from list_inbox_leads or the webhook. However, it adds nothing for 'brand_id' or the nested 'query' override object, so half the parameters remain unexplained across both schema and description.

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 (Get) and resource (one lead the AI DM agent captured) scoped by lead id, and explicitly situates it against the sibling aidelly_list_inbox_leads by naming that tool as the source of the id. An agent can distinguish single-fetch from list without opening either schema.

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?

Explains where the required id comes from (aidelly_list_inbox_leads or the inbox.lead.captured webhook), which is clear contextual guidance for invocation. It does not state when-not to use it or name an outright alternative for a specific scenario, so it falls short of a 5.

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