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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral load; it usefully discloses the return payload (new lead's UUID, ClientId, app link) despite there being no output schema, plus the underlying POST /lead/create/ endpoint. It does not say whether any of the 25 fields are practically required to succeed, nor anything about permissions or duplicate handling.

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 compact sentences with the WRITE marker front-loaded, the captured data summarized in one parenthetical, and the return values stated last. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated verbatim from the schema.

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 25-parameter creation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, payload categories and return values, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The remaining gap is that zero parameters are marked required, yet the description gives no hint about which fields matter in practice.

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 every field including LeadDateTime, JobSource and ClientId is already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description's field grouping adds narrative framing but no format, default or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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") and then enumerates the payload's semantic scope (client contact and address, requested time, job type, source, notes), which is far more informative than the bare name. The naming alone separates it from the update_lead, convert_lead_to_job and create_job siblings, and the WRITE prefix signals state change.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as create_job, convert_lead_to_job or update_lead, even though those siblings overlap heavily at the 'Capture a job/lead' decision point. The reader must infer that this creates a fresh lead record rather than converting or updating one.

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