get_lead_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing "Read-only" is largely redundant. The description does add scope value by enumerating the joined entities returned (account, open opportunities, territory, timestamps), which signals this performs several lookups, but it says nothing about behavior when a lead is missing or the result is partial.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the payload contents front-loaded and the safety note last. Nothing to cut.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no prose. For a single-param read tool this is close to adequate, but it leaves open the lead_id format and the when-to-use boundary against five routing siblings — decisions an agent still has to guess at.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for lead_id and adds nothing — no format, no source-system hint. The parameter is self-evident by name and required, which keeps this at minimum-viable rather than failing.

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?

Specific verb+resource: returns a normalized lead plus its account, open opportunities, territory and source timestamps — an agent knows exactly what data it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from routing siblings like get_routing_case or list_leads_for_routing, so the boundary must be inferred.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the routing siblings, nor on prerequisites (does the lead need to be in a routing case first?). "Read-only" hints at safety but is not a usage condition.

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