get_lead_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It covers read-only safety, enumerates the returned fields, and explains the company_resolved flag and warnings. This is substantial context for a read tool, though it does not cover error cases or edge behaviors in detail.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose and safety, and the second adds essential behavioral details. Every word contributes value.

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?

For a simple read tool with an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, return fields, and a key data-quality flag. However, it omits parameter usage, which is a notable gap given the low schema coverage. The output schema likely documents return values, so that is not a deficiency.

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 must compensate. It does not mention email or employee_id at all, nor explain how the lead is identified, whether identifiers are mutually exclusive, or what happens if neither is provided. The schema only provides types and defaults, leaving the semantic meaning entirely unexplained.

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 function: 'Read one lead's current state from HubSpot.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly declares read-only behavior. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on leads rather than blog summaries and by contrasting with upsert operations.

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 context by stating the returned IDs are 'so you can write status back without re-searching,' suggesting it is the read-before-write companion to upsert_lead_profile. It also instructs to check company_resolved for interpreting data. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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