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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key trial conditions (25 live deliveries, 14 days, verified sign-in, no payment authorization), which helps the agent anticipate what starting the trial entails. It does not describe the return value or any follow-up side effects, but for a fixed-term activation tool the important traits are covered.

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 compact sentences with no wasted words. The when-to-use condition and core terms come first, and the alternative routing is placed at the end, making the most decision-relevant information immediately visible.

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 supplies everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly: the conditions, the exact trial terms, and the alternatives. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document and no ambiguity to resolve.

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 exact action ('start the standard no-card production trial') and the precise terms (25 live lead deliveries for 14 days, verified sign-in, no payment authorization). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_leadproof_replay_trial and get_leadproof_evaluation_path, so an agent cannot confuse it with 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 opens with the trigger condition ('Use when a buyer is ready to start...') and names alternatives for different scenarios. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without needing to inspect other tools.

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