get-stl-lead

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by using 'Fetch' and showing the GET verb, so there is no contradiction. The description adds the scope requirement ('stl:read') but does not disclose other behaviors such as error responses or the shape of the returned lead, which is acceptable given the read-only annotation lowers the burden.

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 ('Fetch an STL lead') is front-loaded, followed by the endpoint and scope. Every part 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-parameter read-only fetch tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, the exact endpoint, the required scope, and the operation type. With readOnlyHint provided and no output schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema covers the only parameter completely (id, with 'Lead id.' and constraints). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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') and resource ('an STL lead'), and includes the underlying REST endpoint (GET /api/public/stl/leads/{id}), which makes the operation unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling list-stl-leads by implying a singular fetch by id, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent would use this when it needs a specific STL lead by its id rather than a list of leads. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance, and no alternative tool is named, so the agent must infer the distinction from sibling names.

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