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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the lead's state changes, that an event is logged on the lead, and crucially that 'nothing is sent to the lead' — an important side-effect clarification the destructiveHint annotation alone doesn't convey. It also names the endpoint. It does not cover reversibility or permission requirements, which matters for a destructive mutation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effects, then the parameters and endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema, it covers what happens to the lead, what is recorded, and what is not sent. A brief note on whether an existing call back can be overwritten or cancelled would make it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the call_back_in versus scheduled_for choice and mentions the optional comment and category, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema's own descriptions already provide.

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 and resource ('Schedule a lead for a call back') and clarifies the resulting state change and event logging. It is clearly distinct from winner/loser/archive siblings in substance, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 scheduling intent is implied by the description and the 'Set when with call_back_in (minutes) or scheduled_for' line gives practical guidance on choosing between the two timing parameters. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus mark_lead_winner, mark_lead_loser, or delegate_lead.

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