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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying API route and confirms single-record retrieval, but says nothing about behavior when the id is unknown or how much of the record is returned.

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 short fragments, front-loaded with the resource and key. The raw endpoint path is marginally useful telemetry for an agent but borders on filler.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but an agent gets no indication of id provenance or failure behavior on an invalid/unknown id, which are the realistic call-time risks.

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 the single required parameter has no description, so the description must carry the load. Saying 'by record id' clarifies that record_id is the lead's identifier, but it doesn't say where to obtain it, whether it's the internal AgencyBloc id, or what type/format is expected beyond the schema's integer constraint.

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 resource (one Sales Enablement lead record) and the key (record id), which lets an agent distinguish it from list/search siblings such as agencybloc_search_leads_by_phone. It never explicitly contrasts with siblings like agencybloc_get_individual, but the verb+resource+cardinality 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus agencybloc_search_leads_by_phone or other get_* tools, and no stated prerequisite (e.g., that record_id must come from a search). The 'POST salesEnablement/Leads/detail' fragment is an endpoint hint, not usage guidance.

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