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

The destructiveHint=true annotation carries the safety profile, and the description adds a useful domain detail ('priced in cents') that is not in the annotations. It does not disclose permissions, validation failures, or side effects of the two customer modes, but the annotation absorbs most of the burden.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core verb/modes and closed with the endpoint. Every clause maps to a parameter group, though the second sentence packs many optional fields into one list.

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 mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and 0 required params, the description covers the primary modes and field semantics but says nothing about what the call returns, required fields for the inline customer, or auth needs. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 44% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by naming the key inputs (customer_id, customer, address, lead_source, assigned_employee, tags, note, line_items) and adding the 'cents' unit convention. It does not clarify address vs address_id exclusivity, but it adds real meaning beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Create a lead') and uniquely names the two operating modes: existing customer via customer_id or inline new customer via customer. This clearly separates it from create_customer and create_job, but does not explicitly contrast it with adjacent estimate/lead creation flows.

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?

It distinguishes the two mutually-exclusive input paths (existing vs inline customer), which is useful selection guidance. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus siblings like create_customer or create_estimate, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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