qualify_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a score, recommended actions, and routing decision, which gives some output context. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only analysis or triggers follow-ups, permission requirements, rate limits, or how the urgency tier is calculated. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and outputs. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from return values). Overall, it's appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return types, which helps, but misses behavioral context and parameter guidance. This is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves gaps for effective agent use.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how inputs like 'annualRevenue' or 'decisionTimeline' influence the qualification. This meets the minimum viable standard but doesn't compensate for the 14% coverage gap (e.g., nested 'contactInfo' object details).

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 tool's purpose: 'Qualify a sales lead and determine urgency tier (hot/warm/nurture).' It specifies the verb ('qualify') and resource ('sales lead') with concrete outputs (score, actions, routing). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_proposal' or 'handle_objection', which might also involve lead processing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing in the sales process, or how it differs from sibling tools such as 'compare_competitor' or 'generate_truequote'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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