get-crm-lead

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (GET), the exact endpoint, and the required crm:read scope. It does not detail response shape or error behavior, but for a simple read-only fetch this is a minor omission.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with the action and resource, then provides endpoint and scope with no filler. Every clause contributes necessary information.

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?

With a single required id, a read-only annotation, and no nested objects, the endpoint/scope/resource information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No critical prerequisites or additional context are missing.

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 100% and the sole id parameter is already described as 'CRM lead id.' The description only reiterates the id in the URL template, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema requires.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a CRM lead'), and the exact endpoint, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The singular resource and path distinguish it from list-crm-leads and approve/reject-crm-leads, even though those siblings are not named.

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 intended use is implied: retrieve a single CRM lead by ID with read-only scope. However, the description never explicitly says when to use this over list-crm-leads, approve-crm-lead, or reject-crm-lead, and provides no exclusion or alternative guidance.

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