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

With no annotations to lean on, the description explicitly discloses the key behavior: it returns live conversion information and a payment address. Given the zero-parameter, informational nature of the tool, this is sufficient transparency about what happens on invocation.

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 purpose, with payment methods and return contents stated compactly. No wasted words or circular phrasing.

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-input informational pricing tool, the description fully covers when to use it interactively, what to expect (live conversion and payment address), and how payment works. There is no parameter, output schema, or safety concern that needs further explanation.

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 no parameters)SkipTo the schema already tells the agent everything about inputs. The description reinforces this by framing the tool as a direct informational query ('what the lead tools cost', 'returns live conversion').

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 immediately names the resource ('the lead tools') and the specific purpose ('what they cost and how to pay'), with explicit payment methods. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lead tools like leads_find_businesses or leads_verify_domains, which are about discovery and enrichment rather than pricing/payment.

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 makes clear when to use the tool: when an agent needs lead-tool pricing or payment instructions. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives, but the pricing/payment angle is distinct enough across the sibling list. A minor improvement would be stating that this is a reference/pricing tool rather than a data-enrichment tool.

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