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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds value by enumerating what fields come back (customer, address, lead source, tags, assigned employee, status, pipeline status), which is meaningful since there is no output schema. It does not, however, cover error behavior (e.g. not-found), auth, or rate limits, so it adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the operation and its return payload come first, followed by the endpoint reference. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-id read with no output schema, the description supplies the return-field inventory an agent would otherwise lack, plus the underlying endpoint. It is close to complete; only error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a simple getter.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents 'lead_id' fully and the description only restates 'by id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no syntax or format detail 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 (fetch) and resource (a single lead by id), and enumerates the returned facets. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_leads, which returns multiple leads rather than one.

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?

The phrase 'by id' implies retrieval of a known lead, and the sibling housecall_list_leads provides an implicit alternative, but the description never states when to use this versus that list endpoint or what prerequisite (a valid lead_id) is needed. 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.