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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by describing the returned sections and the one-section-versus-all-sections behavior, though it does not discuss errors or authentication.

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 compact and front-loaded: it first states what the tool returns, then enumerates the relevant sections, then explains the optional key behavior. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete because it explains both the section structure and optional-key behavior. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance relative to sibling lead-related tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single optional `lead_key` parameter. It does so by explaining that a key selects one section and no key returns all sections, and it lists the available section names, though it does not explicitly clarify that `lead_key` is a section key rather than a lead identifier.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a lead's `lead_json` step-form structure and enumerates the sections returned: `version`, `steps`, `fields`, `edges`, and `success`. It distinguishes this from tools that return actual lead data by focusing on structure, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 description explains parameter behavior—passing a key returns one section, omitting it returns all—but gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus `get_lead`, `list_leads`, or related variable tools. There are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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