brief_lead

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no indication of read-only vs. mutating behavior, permission needs, or cost. The one genuine trait it does reveal is output localization to Russian, which is a small but real piece of context.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the action. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing, so it does not earn above a middling score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and for a one-parameter read tool the core action is covered. What is missing is any situational context explaining how it fits alongside the many sibling lead-advice tools.

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 0% and the single parameter lead_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The word 'vacancy' only loosely hints that lead_id identifies a job lead; no format, ID type, or source is given.

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 verb ('explain') and resource ('vacancy'), so the basic action is inferable, but it never reconciles 'vacancy' with the tool name brief_lead or the lead_id parameter. It also fails to distinguish this from siblings like check_red_flags, rate_advice, or board_advice that plausibly also 'explain' something.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the ~30 sibling tools. The only implicit guidance is that a lead_id is required, which the schema already enforces.

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