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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), lowering the bar. The description adds real value beyond them: default ordering (newest first), the returned field set (name, email, phone, company, source, status, score, notes) and a data-handling constraint about not pasting personal data publicly.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the core list+resource+ordering, then filters, then usage. The field enumeration and privacy reminder make it slightly dense but every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and all six parameters are schema-documented. Purpose, ordering, returned fields, filter surface, example intents and a privacy caveat are all present, leaving no material gap for a read-only list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema (including cursor semantics and exact-match sources/statuses). The description only restates the filter dimensions at a high level, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (list) and resource (sales leads in SuperBot CRM), with scope (this workspace, newest first) and the lead origins enumerated (chat contact sharing, workflow/form, manual). An agent can distinguish this from list_recent_conversations or search_knowledge without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('who asked for a quote this week', lead follow-up review) and names the filter dimensions that select them, which orients the agent well. It does not name an alternative sibling (e.g. search) or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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