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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the content shape of the record (including that an error field exists on failure), but says nothing about behavior when the id is unknown, pagination, or freshness of a running search.

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?

A single telegraphic sentence with zero waste, and the identifying noun phrase ('One Lead Finder search') is front-loaded before the field list.

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 full annotations and 100% schema coverage, and no output schema to describe, the definition is workable for a simple read. It still omits the sibling-routing guidance and any not-found/error semantics, which are the only things an agent genuinely needs beyond the schema.

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 100% for the single id parameter (documented as a Lead search UUID), so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds no format or lookup-key detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names the resource precisely (one Lead Finder search) and enumerates what it contains: query, status, discovery/enrichment progress, and failure error. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list_lead_searches, so the singleton-vs-list distinction is inferred from the name rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of list_lead_searches as the alternative for enumerating searches. The agent must infer from the name and the required id that this is a fetch-one-by-id operation.

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