crm_get_lead

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'specific properties and associations', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to guide safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key parameters. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly addresses what the tool does. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing parameter roles, but it's appropriately concise for its purpose.

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 complexity of a CRM tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, return values, and how to interpret 'properties' and 'associations' arrays. This makes it inadequate for reliable agent use without additional context.

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 adds some meaning by referencing 'specific properties and associations', which aligns with the 'properties' and 'associations' parameters in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate by explaining parameter formats, constraints, or examples. The baseline is 3 because the description provides minimal but relevant context beyond the bare schema.

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 resource 'a single lead by ID', making the purpose evident. It adds specificity with 'with specific properties and associations', which helps distinguish it from generic get operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_get_object' or 'crm_search_leads', which could retrieve similar data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'crm_get_object', 'crm_search_leads', and 'crm_batch_read_objects', there's no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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