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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations (only destructiveHint=false and title). It details the partial patch semantics, required field combinations, and server-enforced enum. However, it does not mention whether the tool creates a new lead if the email is not found or what happens on validation errors, which prevents a score of 5.

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 paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then provides details. It is not overly verbose, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier parsing. Every sentence adds value, so it scores above average but not maximal.

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?

The description lacks information about return values or success/failure indicators (no output schema). It does not describe error cases (e.g., email not found, invalid enum). Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the response behavior to be fully complete. Sibling tools like suppress_lead are mentioned but not in context of return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing each parameter, its type, constraints (e.g., max length, max items, enum values), and the fact that interestStatus is server-enforced. It clarifies that email is required and at least one of the other three must be provided. However, it does not repeat all schema constraints precisely (e.g., tags minLength=1), which would have earned a 5.

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 what you learned about a contact... as a durable, contact-level disposition — keyed by email, visible across every campaign that lists them.' It uses specific verbs ('record', 'update') and names the resource (lead disposition). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning suppress_lead for 'do not contact' and list_leads for filtering.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It explains the partial patch behavior, required fields, and enum constraints. It directly tells the agent to use suppress_lead instead for 'do not contact' dispositions. This makes the decision boundary clear.

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