get_lead

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the module prerequisite ('Requires the Sales module') and implies read-only via 'Get', but says nothing about error behavior for missing/invalid IDs or any access constraints beyond the module.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, then the returned detail, then the prerequisite. Zero 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 simple single-entity getter with no output schema, the description covers the resource, what detail is returned (contact info, status, source, linked customer), and the module prerequisite. It is nearly complete, though it lacks any note on missing-record behavior.

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 100% for the single lead_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (CRM lead) with clear scope ('single ... by ID'), which implicitly separates it from search_leads. However it never names the sibling alternative, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by ID' (lookup of one known lead vs. browsing), and the Sales module prerequisite is stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to search_leads for discovery.

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