get_lead

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Fetch" implies a read, but nothing states read-only semantics, what happens when no lead matches, or whether an ambiguous identifier errors out — all relevant for a lookup that accepts three optional keys.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and then the selection rule. Every clause earns its place.

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-record lookup the core is covered, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say roughly what a lead record contains or how a miss is signalled. As written, an agent knows how to call it but not what it gets back.

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 must compensate, and it does name all three selectors (lead_id, email, phone) plus the critical mutual-exclusivity constraint that the schema cannot express since every field is nullable and optional. It omits format details (email syntax, lead_id shape) that would push it to a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch one lead") and constrains scope to a single record, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_hot_leads and capture_lead. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 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 "exactly one" rule tells the agent how to select an identifier, but there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus score_lead, list_hot_leads, or check_availability, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are given. Usage is implied by the name and verb rather than stated.

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