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

Annotations only declare write/safe/local, so the description earns credit for disclosing that all marketing channels (email, SMS, WhatsApp, Telegram) are disabled on the resulting contact — a meaningful side effect. However it does not say what happens when the prospect already exists (update, merge, or no-op) or what the tool returns, which matters for a write tool with no output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the create-or-retrieve behavior is front-loaded. The parenthetical consent list is dense but carries real information rather than padding.

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 three-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the consent/behavioral aspect and the coordinate requirement but leaves the mandatory 'id' input and the outcome on existing contacts unexplained, which is a material omission.

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%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it states a public or supplied coordinate is required, naming email, phone, or social profile. Two gaps remain — the required 'id' parameter is never explained, and 'profil social' has no corresponding parameter in the schema, which could mislead.

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 names a specific verb pair and resource: 'Créer ou retrouver le contact CRM d'un prospect', which conveys the create-or-find (upsert) semantic that the tool name 'convert_prospect' alone does not. It is distinguishable from siblings like import_prospects or exclude_prospect, though the word 'convert' is never explained relative to that upsert behavior.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many prospect/contact siblings. The consent statement reads as an operational constraint on the created contact rather than a routing rule telling the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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