get_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The [tier: readonly-owner] tag communicates that this is a read-only operation owned by the lead's owner, which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose return format, error behavior, or authentication beyond the tier hint. The tag provides moderate value but not deep transparency.

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 a single, tight sentence plus API mapping and tier tag. Zero wasted words, all content earns its place. The GET /leads/{id} mapping and tier annotation are compact and valuable additions.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably informative but could go further. The tier tag, API mapping, and single-parameter schema cover the basics. It would benefit from noting what 'full details' includes (fields returned) given there's no output schema to communicate that.

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?

There's only 1 parameter (lead_id), and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no semantic meaning beyond the type. The description implies lead_id is what identifies the lead but doesn't elaborate on its format or how to obtain valid IDs. With only one self-evident parameter, the gap is modest.

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 it gets full details for a single lead, which is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from list_leads (which would list leads). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond the single-vs-list implicit distinction.

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 [tier: readonly-owner] tag and 'Get full details' phrasing imply it's for retrieving one lead when you have its ID. It doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus list_leads, though the single vs list contrast is fairly intuitive. No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations provided.

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