get_lead

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details' without mentioning authentication requirements, response shape, potential errors, or any side effects. The description essentially restates the tool's purpose without adding meaningful behavioral context beyond what the name and schema already imply.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the core action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (get by ID) and the presence of a complete schema, the description is adequate for successful invocation. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description could have added return format or usage caveats, but for a standard get-by-ID operation, the current level is sufficient.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (lead_id and fields). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, mentioning only 'by ID' which repeats the lead_id parameter. Since the schema already explains the parameters clearly, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'details of a specific lead by ID', which precisely identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_form_leads or get_campaign_leads by emphasizing the singular 'specific lead by ID', making its scope unambiguous.

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 when a specific lead ID is known, but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_form_leads, get_campaign_leads). There is no mention of exclusions or scenarios where other tools should be used, so the context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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