crm_get_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose if it's safe (non-destructive), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on errors (e.g., invalid leadId). The mention of 'specific properties and associations' hints at filtering, but lacks details on default behavior or response format. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 ('Get a single lead by ID') and adds essential constraints ('with specific properties and associations'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety or permissions, parameter details beyond hints, or what the output contains (e.g., lead data structure). For a read operation with multiple parameters and no structured guidance, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds some value by mentioning 'by ID' (mapping to leadId) and 'with specific properties and associations' (hinting at the properties and associations parameters), but doesn't explain their formats, optionality, or semantics (e.g., what happens if properties is omitted). It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves key details unclear, warranting a baseline score.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('a single lead'), and key constraints ('by ID with specific properties and associations'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like crm_list_objects or crm_search_leads by specifying retrieval of a single entity rather than listing or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from crm_get_object or crm_get_lead_properties, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication, compare it to similar tools (e.g., crm_get_object for generic retrieval or crm_get_lead_properties for property-specific access), or specify use cases like needing detailed lead data versus just properties. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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