get_lead

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the identifier format but does not disclose additional behaviors such as error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. Given annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and specifics, the second adds identifier format. Could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately concise.

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 (present but not shown), the description covers the key inputs and output content. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but these are less critical given idempotent read-only nature. Almost complete.

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 input schema has 2 parameters with 50% description coverage. The description clarifies the 'identifier' format (e.g., 'LEAD-1'), adding value. However, it does not explain the 'funnel' parameter meaning or expected values. The schema description for 'funnel' is minimal ('a string that will be trimmed'), so the description partly compensates but not fully.

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 retrieves full details for a Huly lead and lists included fields. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'lead' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'list_leads' tool, though the single-lead focus is implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_leads'. The description implies usage for viewing a single lead's details, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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