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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'WRITE:' label is consistent with that. It adds useful detail by disclosing the return values (UUID, ClientId, app link) and the underlying endpoint (POST /lead/create/), but says nothing about auth requirements or the notable fact that none of the 25 fields are mandatory.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with the mutation flag first and return values last. The trailing API endpoint is marginal for an agent but cheap and does add a small amount of provenance.

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?

The description compensates for the absent output schema by naming the return fields, which is good. However, for a 25-parameter tool with zero required fields and only a destructiveHint annotation, it omits minimum viable field combinations and any warning about duplicate-client creation, which an agent would need.

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 all 25 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's grouped summary ('client contact and address, requested time, job type, source, notes') adds framing but no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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 ('create a new lead'), enumerates the content it carries (client contact and address, requested time, job type, source, notes), and names the return values. An agent can distinguish it from workiz_create_job and workiz_convert_lead_to_job by the resource name alone.

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 'WRITE:' prefix signals a mutation, but there is no statement of when to use this tool rather than workiz_create_job, workiz_convert_lead_to_job, or workiz_update_lead. No prerequisites or context are given, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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