lookup_lead

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and lists the data fields returned, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation mutates anything or how unknown handles are handled. Some behavioral context is added, but not rich detail.

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 and concise: a purpose statement, a use-case clause, a list of included data, and a parameter definition. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary fluff, and it is front-loaded with the core 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and output contents. It does not mention error behavior or end-of-life edge cases, but given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is nearly 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 zero description coverage for the 'handle' parameter, and the description fully compensates by specifying the format (TikTok username, with or without @) and providing concrete examples. This is critical for correct invocation and clearly adds value beyond the 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 'Get the full fact sheet for one influencer lead by handle' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the included fields, distinguishing it from list-style tools like list_unread_leads or CRM lookup tools.

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 says 'Use this when you need to know everything about an influencer to draft a personalised reply or decide next-step outreach,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' part for a top score.

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