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

Annotations only declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile. The description adds two genuinely useful traits beyond that: a duplicate-phone warning tied to visible leads, and a mandatory two-step draft-then-confirm workflow. It still omits permission requirements and whether the draft is persisted or discarded.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and with no filler. The terse 'Two-step: draft, then confirm' fragment is efficient but slightly clipped.

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 nine-parameter mutation with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers the workflow and duplicate handling but leaves the draft's return shape, required fields, and undo/rollback behavior unexplained. Adequate but with real gaps.

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 only 11% — essentially just the 'confirm' flag — so the description must carry the load for nine parameters. It gestures at the confirm semantics via 'draft, then confirm' but never explains business_name, phone format, email, notes, or the other fields, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 ('Add a new lead to your pipeline') and immediately scopes it to pipeline leads, which differentiates it from siblings like convert_trial_to_lead and claim_lead. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, so it does not reach the sibling-differentiating bar of a 5.

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 draft/confirm flow and the duplicate-phone warning imply appropriate usage, but the description never states when to use this instead of convert_trial_to_lead or claim_lead, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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