yax_enrich_lead_data

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and external calls (openWorldHint=true). The description adds context by stating that data is enriched and logged to CRM, which aligns well and provides extra detail on side effects.

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, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with action and result. Efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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 presence of annotations, full input schema, and a clear description of return values, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds general context about parsing and enriching but does not elaborate on parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses specific verbs ('parses', 'enriches', 'logs') and clearly identifies the resource (raw lead data) and output fields. It distinguishes from sibling 'yax_score_leads' which likely only scores, making this tool's role clear.

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 lists input sources (email, form, webhook, manual) implying when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide comparisons to sibling tools like 'yax_score_leads' for alternative scenarios.

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