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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'accepts no input' and 'returns no personal or customer data', which is a meaningful privacy guarantee. It also explains the decision's ordering logic, adding behavioral context beyond a generic 'get decision'.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds information (purpose, decision details, input/output constraints). No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behavior and outcome. It even notes privacy implications. It could arguably mention the exact return format or how the decision is computed, but given simplicity, this is sufficiently 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'accepts no input', which aligns with the empty schema. No additional parameter explanations are needed or provided.

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 states the tool returns 'the official ordered LeadProof plan decision' and specifies the exact decision contents (trial-first, then Builder or Agency checkout after authorization). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_leadproof_checkout or get_leadproof_trial.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It states what the tool does but omits any mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without clear direction on selection.

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