smart_lead_intake

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: dedup logic (by phone/email), conditional deal creation, note logging, and follow-up reminder. It also states the return value (created vs. updated, IDs). However, it omits potential error scenarios or edge cases (e.g., multiple dedup matches).

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 well-structured with a summary sentence, a bulleted list of steps, and a final output note. Every sentence is informative and non-redundant. The structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 (9 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description covers the workflow comprehensively, including return value. It explains conditional behavior for property_id and notes. A score of 4 reflects minor gaps (e.g., no mention of parameter interactions or constraints), but overall it is sufficient for agent use.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds significant value by explaining how parameters are used in the workflow (e.g., 'email and phone used for dedup search', 'property_id creates deal', 'notes logged as note task'). This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 purpose as a complete lead intake workflow, listing specific steps: dedup check, create/update contact, log notes, create deal if property_id, set follow-up reminder. It differentiates from simpler sibling tools like create_contact and create_deal by emphasizing its multi-step, automated nature.

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 explicitly recommends use for 'post-call processing from a voice agent' and enumerates the workflow steps, providing clear context. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the inference from sibling tools is straightforward. A score of 4 reflects good guidance with room for explicit exclusions.

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