send_qualified_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals a critical behavioral trait: the tool has no network side effects, which is non-obvious from the name 'send_qualified_lead'. It does not state whether the built payload is returned or persisted, but the core side-effect guarantee is clearly disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and object come first and the side-effect qualifier is placed last. It is slightly too spare for a four-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, but it earns its place and is not padded.

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 absence of annotations, no output schema, and four parameters including a nested object, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. It does not describe what the generated payload should look like, what valid inputs are, or how this relates to the send_* siblings beyond the side-effect hint.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (eventId, value, clickIds, currency). It does not explain the role of the required eventId, the structure of clickIds, or the format of value/currency, so an agent has no parameter-level guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and a specific resource ('qualified lead conversion payload'), and the qualifier 'without network side effects' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_conversion and send_sale. It fully disambiguates from the send_* family.

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 phrase 'without network side effects' implies this tool is for constructing a payload rather than delivering it, giving some contextual guidance. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over send_conversion/send_sale or when not to use it, leaving the routing to inference.

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