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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already flags this as a mutating operation, so the bar is lower, and the description usefully adds that line items are priced in cents. It does not disclose auth requirements, required fields, what happens if neither customer nor customer_id is supplied, or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded with the core action and the either/or customer mode, followed by optional fields and the API endpoint. Every clause carries information, though the endpoint reference is largely redundant.

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 9 params, nested objects, no required fields and no output schema, the description covers the shape of the call adequately but omits validation rules (e.g., what happens with neither customer form), permissions, and any sense of the returned lead. Adequate, not complete.

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 only 44%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates most top-level params (address, lead source, assigned employee, tags, note, line items) and clarifies the cents unit, but the nested customer and line-item fields remain undocumented in both places, leaving gaps it does not close.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a lead") and maps it to the underlying operation ("POST /leads"), and it splits the two supported creation modes (existing customer via customer_id vs. inline new customer). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_customer or create_estimate, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clarifies the internal either/or choice between customer_id and customer, which is useful, but it never states when to create a lead rather than a customer or a job, nor any prerequisites. Usage context is only implied.

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