capture_lead

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful non-obvious trait — deduplication by URL and title fingerprint — which tells the agent repeated calls won't create duplicates. But it says nothing about permissions, side effects, or failure behavior, so the disclosure is partial despite being relevant.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose leads and the dedupe behavior follows. Nothing redundant, though the dedupe clause is doing double duty as the only behavioral disclosure.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with 3 required inputs, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but required-field semantics and usage context are 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. Mentioning URL and title fingerprint implicitly maps to source_url and title, but platform and description (both required) are entirely unexplained, leaving half the interface opaque.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Track a job lead.' An agent can tell this records a lead rather than listing or scanning for one (contrast scan_for_leads, list_outreach). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the many other lead-mutating siblings like update_lead_status or brief_lead.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus the crowded set of lead-related siblings (update_lead_status, brief_lead, hot_leads, chase_leads). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about the intended workflow.

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