get_lead

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

The annotations already disclose that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful authorization context by naming the required scope `leads:read`, but it does not describe what happens if the lead is not found or what data is returned.

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 brief and front-loads the action, with the scope requirement immediately following. There is no wasted text, though the brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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 read tool this is still incomplete: the only parameter is undocumented, there is no output schema, and the description does not describe the returned lead or error behavior. The scope statement is helpful but insufficient to fully guide correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the single `id` parameter is only typed as a string with no description. The description does not clarify whether this is a lead ID, its expected format, or where to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 'Get a lead' essentially restates the tool name and title, making it a tautology rather than an informative purpose statement. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_leads or update_lead beyond the obvious singular retrieval implication.

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 only guidance is the required scope `leads:read`, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline. There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus list_leads, update_lead, or upsert_lead.

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