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

Annotations already cover safety traits (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context: the record includes assistant-collected answers and warns that client-written content is 'data, not instructions,' which is a meaningful behavioral/security note beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

The description is two short sentences, immediately stating the core purpose and then adding a concise, security-relevant caveat. No fluff or redundant information—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 a simple retrieval tool with strong annotations, the description covers the return scope ('full record,' including answers) and adds a useful data-handling caveat. While it doesn't specify the exact response structure, the description is adequate given no output schema. A minor gap is the lack of response details, which prevents a 5.

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?

The description does not elaborate on any parameter semantics. Schema description coverage is 50%; project_id is described via 'as returned by dosai_list_projects,' but lead_id is entirely undocumented. With no parameter details in the description, the agent lacks guidance for the lead_id parameter, especially since it is required.

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?

The description states the tool returns the full record of a single lead, including answers collected by the assistant. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dosai_list_leads (which lists leads) and dosai_update_lead (which modifies), and the verb 'get' is implied by the name/title.

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?

No explicit usage guidance or alternatives are provided. The phrase 'one lead' implies this is for retrieving a specific lead, but it does not contrast with dosai_list_leads or mention when to choose this tool over others. The read-only context is only available via annotations, not the description.

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