leads_convert_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the status check behavior, possible statuses (queued, running, completed, failed), and that completion returns deal_id. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides specific instructions and outcomes. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 status check with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, prerequisite (conversion_id source), possible statuses, and expected output on completion. It is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that conversion_id comes from leads_convert_to_deal, which provides meaningful context beyond the schema. The id parameter description in schema is sufficient.

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 'Check the status' and the resource 'lead-to-deal conversion job'. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like 'leads_convert_to_deal' and 'deals_convert_status' by specifying the context and referencing the conversion_id.

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 instructs to use the conversion_id from leads_convert_to_deal, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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