get_lead

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

The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the basic action. With no annotations, it should disclose what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, or any access requirements. It does not, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 extremely concise (4 words), which is efficient but at the cost of essential information. It is not structured to highlight key points, and the brevity undermines its overall usefulness.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what a lead is, what the output contains, or any additional context, making it incomplete.

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 description should explain the parameter 'lead_id'. However, it merely says 'by ID', which adds no meaning beyond what the schema already implies. The parameter's purpose and format are not clarified.

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 'Get a lead by ID' clearly states the verb and resource, but it's very minimal and does not provide any additional context that distinguishes it from other similar getter tools (e.g., get_contact, get_matter). It is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_leads or patch_lead. There is no guidance on prerequisites or intended use cases.

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