score_lead

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that scoring is rule-based, deterministic, that the same lead always yields the same score, and that every point is attributed to 'reasons'. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not address side effects or permissions.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first names the operation and range, the second explains the deterministic and explainable behavior. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 single-parameter tool with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description adequately explains what the tool does and how the score behaves. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but schema description coverage is 100% and the lead_id parameter is thoroughly documented: it must be lookup_lead's numeric 'id', not an email or company id, and invalid ids read as not found. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Score a lead 0-100' against deterministic qualification rules. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are about lookup, CRM checks, and knowledge search.

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 the obvious use case—scoring a lead—but does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over check_crm or search_knowledge, nor does it state when not to use it. The lead_id schema adds a helpful 'call lookup_lead first' cue, but that guidance lives outside the tool description itself.

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