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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation and safety profile are covered structurally. The description adds that this is a state transition and that a lead id must be sourced first, but says nothing about side effects (notifications, automation triggers on 'closed' or 'converted') or whether transitions can be reversed. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the action and state space come first, followed by the prerequisite lookup. Nothing needs to be re-read or reordered.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and mutation annotations, the description plus structured fields give an agent essentially everything needed to invoke it. The remaining gaps are the omitted 'converted' status and any note on side effects of closing or converting a lead.

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 both parameters are documented and the status enum fully enumerates values, establishing the baseline of 3. The description only restates the lead_id provenance already present in the schema and lists status values incompletely (omitting 'converted'), adding no real semantics beyond the structured data.

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 (move) and resource (a lead) plus the state space, which clearly separates it from siblings like update_contact or set_task_status. However, it names only 'new, contacted and closed' while the schema enum also allows 'converted', so the stated scope is slightly narrower than the tool's actual capability.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call list_leads or get_lead first to obtain the lead id, naming the sibling tools to use. It gives a clear precondition but no exclusion guidance (e.g., when not to set status, or that other tools handle deal stages instead).

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