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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context by saying searches originate in the dashboard and that status/progress are returned, though it does not discuss pagination behavior beyond the schema.

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 short and front-loads the resource and returned fields. The first sentence is grammatically a fragment, but it remains efficient and wastes little space.

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 list tool with complete parameter documentation and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, origin of searches, and returned status/progress. No output schema is needed for an agent to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit and cursor are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 identifies the resource concretely ('Lead Finder searches of the workspace') and the data returned ('status and progress'), which is enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings like add_leads or get_lead_search. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, but the intent is clear.

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 sentence 'Searches are started in the dashboard' usefully signals that this tool only lists existing searches and does not create them. However, it does not explicitly compare with get_lead_search or state when to use this versus that sibling.

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