crm_get_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying it's a read operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), what happens if the lead ID doesn't exist, whether there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a single lead by ID') and adds necessary qualifiers ('with specific properties and associations'). There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'properties' and 'associations' mean in practice, what values they accept, or what the tool returns. For a tool that retrieves data with filtering options, more context is needed to 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 description mentions 'by ID with specific properties and associations', which maps to the three parameters (leadId, properties, associations). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about parameter meanings. The description adds some value by hinting at what properties and associations are for, but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, resulting in a baseline 3.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a single lead by ID') with additional scope ('with specific properties and associations'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like crm_list_objects or crm_search_leads by specifying retrieval of a single lead rather than listing or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from crm_get_object which might also retrieve leads, making it slightly less specific than a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention when to use crm_get_lead versus crm_get_object or crm_search_leads, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or permissions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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