Set up Cold Leads for the human owner

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds substantial non-derivable detail: the account is created in a pending state, billing is monthly until cancelled, checkout_url must not be opened or paid by the agent, and claim_token must be kept secret. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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 critical usage condition is front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence is directive rather than filler. It is dense and somewhat long, and it mixes input instructions with output-handling rules, but nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names checkout_url, claim_token, and plan.price, and describes the full async flow through check_provisioning_status to the eventual API key. An agent has everything needed to invoke and follow through 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (agent_id, owner_email, callback_url) are documented in the schema itself. The description references plan.price, checkout_url, and claim_token, but these are outputs rather than inputs, so it adds no input semantics beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb chain and resource: 'Creates a pending Cold Leads account for the human owner's e-mail and returns a Stripe payment link.' It is clearly distinct from the siblings (verify_email, search_leads, check_provisioning_status), which are named or implied by function.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition for use: 'Use only when no working Cold Leads API key is available (other Cold Leads tools return missing_api_key or bad_api_key).' It also states what to do afterward — 'call check_provisioning_status until status is active' — so the agent knows both entry and exit conditions.

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