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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses useful behavioral expectations: it returns a public procedure, a fictional example audit, exact prerequisites, and an attributed no-card production trial. The 'fictional' and 'no-card' qualifiers add transparency beyond a simple 'returns trial info' statement, though it does not explicitly state whether the tool has any side effects.

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 with no filler. The use case is front-loaded, the deliverables are listed compactly, and the sibling routing is in a single closing sentence. 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 zero-parameter, informational tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: when to use it, what it returns, and which alternatives to choose. No critical detail is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters for the description to explain. Baseline for zero parameters is 4; the description needs no parameter-level detail.

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 names a specific scenario ('test duplicate-safe replay of failed lead deliveries before purchase') and a specific resource (replay trial). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_leadproof_trial and get_leadproof_evaluation_path, so an agent can identify the correct tool without opening siblings.

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 gives a clear 'use specifically when' condition and names the two alternative tools with their exact selection criteria ('standard trial without replay guidance' and 'general exploration'). This is explicit when/when-not guidance, not just implied context.

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