submit_new_lead

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Log a new...lead' without disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, permissions needed, or error handling. The description lacks transparency beyond the basic action.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every word is informative. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and usage context. It does not need to explain return values. The description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it.

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% and the input schema already describes the parameters ('customer_id' as 'Associated customer profile ID' and 'description' as 'Product interest or issue detail'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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's purpose: 'Log a new marketing or inbound prospect lead in the Housecall Pro sales funnel.' It specifies the verb 'log' and the resource 'lead', and distinguishes from siblings like 'create_estimate' or 'schedule_new_job' by focusing on inbound marketing leads.

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 gives context: 'Used by AI agents handling inbound chat or web form submissions.' This implies when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, sibling tools like 'create_pro_customer' or 'generate_job_invoice' serve as implicit alternatives.

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