yax_score_leads

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

The description discloses that the tool writes to the CRM (matching readOnlyHint=false) and returns scores and enrichment data. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations, though it omits prerequisites like connected CRM or potential 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and outputs. No filler words; every part earns its place.

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 has 3 well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and results. It could mention side effects or prerequisites but is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. It mentions the minimum requirement of email, which is already in the schema. The description does not add new semantic info for parameters 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 clearly states the tool scores inbound leads by conversion likelihood and syncs enriched records to CRM, with specific output details (score 0–100, tier, enrichment data). This distinguishes it from sibling yax_enrich_lead_data, which likely only enriches without scoring.

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 implies usage for leads needing scoring and CRM sync but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like yax_enrich_lead_data. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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