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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's '[read]' prefix is consistent with them. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the no-key fallback returns the full constant set, which is the key runtime trait an agent needs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the '[read]' tag, with the key list doing real work rather than padding. No sentence could be removed without losing information.

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?

With one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations gap, the description supplies enough: what the constants are, what each block roughly contains (stage colours, limits, shape), and how the key argument changes the return. A brief note on the response envelope would make it complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden — and it does, enumerating the valid constant keys (lead_type, lead_fixed_fields, lead_field_types, lead_flow, leads_submit_stage, etc.) with hints about each. It falls short of stating a canonical format or whether invalid keys error or are ignored.

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 a specific verb and resource ('fixed values of the leads module') and enumerates exactly which constants are returned, so an agent can distinguish it from get_lead_variables, get_lead_language, or get_lead_faqs. The rationale ('so none have to be guessed') clarifies the tool's role in the workflow.

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?

It clearly explains the two invocation modes: pass a key for one constant, or omit the key to get all of them. That's actionable usage guidance, but it never names when to prefer this over the sibling variable/FAQ/language getters or whether it should be called before create_lead/edit_lead.

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