crm_get_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'specific properties and associations', which hints at optional data inclusion, but doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the lead ID doesn't exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or provide enough context for the agent to use it effectively without trial and error. For a tool with undocumented parameters and no structured metadata, more guidance is needed.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'by ID with specific properties and associations', which maps to the three parameters (leadId, properties, associations) and clarifies their purpose. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats, constraints, or provide examples. The description adds basic meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a single lead by ID', specifying it retrieves 'specific properties and associations'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like crm_list_objects or crm_search_leads by focusing on single-record retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from crm_get_object or other get operations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crm_get_lead_properties, crm_get_associations, or crm_search_leads. The description implies usage for retrieving a specific lead with optional data, but lacks explicit context about prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison to siblings.

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