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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the main safety profile is communicated. The description adds the concrete GET endpoint and confirms it reads lead notes, but it does not disclose return shape, ordering, filtering behavior, or pagination.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence with the core action, resource, and endpoint. There is no redundant text or repetition.

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 read-only listing operation, the description is minimally adequate due to useful annotations, but it is not complete: it omits the meaning of two optional parameters and any return or output details. The agent can guess the primary purpose but needs additional inference for full use.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies leadId through the URL path. The query and account parameters remain completely unexplained, leaving the agent unsure about how filtering or account scoping works.

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 action ('Buscar comentários do lead') and identifies the exact resource via the GET endpoint. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like datacrazy_leads_notes_create, datacrazy_leads_notes_update, or datacrazy_leads_activities_list.

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 does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any necessary context such as requiring a valid leadId or combining with lead lookup tools. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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