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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: creating a lead may trigger Teamgate workflows or notifications, a side effect the agent cannot learn from annotations.

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 short clauses: the write/verb statement, the key input constraint, and the side-effect note, capped by the endpoint. Front-loaded, no filler, every sentence 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 an 11-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the essential input rule, the side effect, and the endpoint, while annotations cover safety. It stops short of telling the agent what a successful response returns or how the new lead id is surfaced, but otherwise it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters with lengths and the name/company_name mutual requirement. The description restates the name-or-company_name rule but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting details beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('WRITE: create a lead') and clarifies that a lead may be keyed on a person's name or a company_name, which hints at the polymorphic record type. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling write tools teamgate_create_person or teamgate_create_company, leaving the agent to infer which create_* to call.

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 description gives invocation guidance ('Give a person's name, or a company_name for a company lead') and implies the create-record context via 'POST /leads'. It offers no when-to-use/when-not or alternative-selection guidance against the many sibling create tools, so usage remains implied rather than stated.

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