get_lead

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read operation returning full details and that related entities can be embedded, but it does not disclose response format, error behavior, or permission requirements. It is not misleading, but it leaves meaningful behavioral aspects implicit.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the optional parameter guidance follows immediately.

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 get-by-id tool with one required and one optional parameter, the description is nearly complete. It covers the primary action and the main use of 'with', while the schema covers the remaining enum values. A slightly fuller mention of the other embeddable entities would make it flawless.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds light value by clarifying 'with' includes linked contacts and catalog elements, but omits loss_reason and source_id from that clarification. Overall, it does not substantially exceed the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('a single lead'), lookup key ('by ID'), and expected richness ('full details'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from list_leads and get_contact without needing to open the schema.

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 implies usage for the common case of fetching one lead by ID and provides parameter guidance for 'with'. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with list_leads or state when not to use it, so the guidance is more implied than explicit.

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