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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read only; no spend' is largely a restatement. The description adds nothing about pagination (pageToken), filter semantics, result volume, or how charged-only leads differ from all leads.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the resource, but the third fragment is a cryptic internal URI pointer that gives the agent no actionable information, so one of three sentences does not earn its place.

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 tool with 6 parameters, a nested filter object, no output schema, and no return-value documentation, the description is too thin: it omits pagination behavior, filter meaning, and result shape, leaving the agent to guess.

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 50%, and the description compensates with nothing — only an opaque reference 'Fields: soclo://tools/soclo_ads_list_local_services_leads'. The nested parameters object (fromDate/toDate, leadType enum, leadStatus, chargedOnly, pageToken) is left entirely unexplained in prose.

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 a specific resource, 'Google Local Services Ads leads', and flags it as read-only, so the intent is clear. However, it never differentiates from the closely related siblings soclo_ads_list_leads, soclo_ads_list_form_leads, and soclo_ads_list_local_services_lead_conversations, which is exactly where an agent would hesitate.

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?

'Read only; no spend' describes safety rather than usage context. There is no statement of when to call this instead of the other lead-listing tools, nor any prerequisite such as needing a connected LSA account.

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