get_lead_by_email

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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the email isn't found (e.g., returns null vs. error), rate limits, or the format of returned 'lead details'. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. Every element ('Get', 'lead details', 'by email address') earns its place by contributing essential information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'lead details' includes (e.g., fields returned), error conditions, or behavioral aspects like idempotency. For a tool that presumably returns structured data, more context is needed to help an agent use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'email' fully documented in the schema as 'Lead email address'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('lead details'), and identifies the lookup mechanism ('by email address'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_lead_campaigns' or 'list_campaign_leads', which might also retrieve lead information through different mechanisms.

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 available (e.g., 'get_lead_campaigns', 'list_campaign_leads'), there's no indication of whether this is the primary method for retrieving lead details, if it's for single-record lookups, or what distinguishes it from other lead-related tools.

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