Enrich a lead

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds context by noting 'only provided fields are set,' implying partial updates and idempotency. It doesn't contradict annotations and enhances understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 concise: two sentences that each add value. The first sentence explains the action and scope, the second provides workflow guidance. No extraneous text.

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 13-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the core action and workflow context but lacks details on error handling, return values, or behavior when fields already exist. Adequate for basic use but not fully comprehensive.

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 low (8%), so the burden falls on the description. The description lists the 11 field parameters that can be set, but doesn't add type, constraints, or relational context beyond what the schema provides. It's helpful but not deeply informative.

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: 'Record website-sourced details on a lead' and lists the specific fields it can set. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_lead or set_lead_status by focusing on enrichment from website data.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use the pull_lead_website prompt to fetch + extract these from the lead's site first, then persist them here.' This clarifies the intended workflow and when the tool should be applied, though it doesn't list exclusions.

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